I realize that my entry was getting a bit long, so I thought I'd continue a few thoughts here.

Professional relationships count for a lot in the design and advertising business; Goodby Silverstein went from a small west coast agency to a national powerhouse owned by one of the giant holding companies in a short period of time in part because of their savvy in dealing with clients. Call it "kissing ass" (which probably isn't fair), or keeping the client contacts happy, but it worked well for them.

It also doesn't hurt that their creative work has done well for Milk, HP, Porsche, and numerous others (even though, a guy I know who directed a spot for one of their clients said the art directors he worked with had no idea who Rauschenberg was, and then later on referred to him as "Rauschenbaum."). Either way, I think that because of how businesses perceive "advertising," they've been able to grow into a gigantic creative operation that makes more money (no, I'm not saying that's all that matters) and exercises quite a bit of influence over what "commerce and culture" looks like. And in turn, the attitudes businesses have towards our variety of creativity.

Goodby is but one example. There are plenty of others. For instance, Rick Boyko was quite vocal about the on-going success of the American Express OPEN campaign and how "design" and other things played a more critical role in that than any of their TV commercials did. Bottomline though, it was a complete package and they were able to demonstrate successes with hard numbers.

A lot goes into this--first off, where you put the messages plays a huge role. Secondly, really truly knowing the people you're talking to and understanding what motivates them, who they are, and what they need, also figures in. Third, what they said and how they said it locked into all of these things like a lego. Probably because they knew the above really well...which means, for better or for worse, "data and information."

Which is all stuff to fall back on, things to justify decisions, demonstrate more value, and ultimately, be able to do more and more creative work.

Sometimes I wonder if people shy away from the "hard numbers" aspect (I know I'm kinda generalizing) because they think it'll somehow retard creativity--but I'm not so sure that it will.

Ideally, a design/firm would hold their work highly accountable. Without accounting, you (and/or the client) really can't determine if you were succesful or not other than if it was an aesthetically pleasing solution.

The reality is that few design firms and few clients (that I've dealt with, anyways) really don't have any system set up to handle the accounting. I design a lot of web sites and I often get a blank stare when I ask for basic accounting tools like the server logs or the most common questions they receive via email.

I've also been in situations where the design solutions are purely internally driven, and often have more personal ego involved than any real thought for the company and/or company's clientelle needs.

Granted, this is all in my experience...I'm sure there are firms out there that work with clients where all sorts of accountability is measured. That said, just taking a look through your typical design annual, you see little in the way of any accountability analysis.

The few truly rewarding projects I've worked on were rewarding simply due to the fact that the cient had come asking for a business solution and was able to determine the success of the project based on business criteria. Ie, we saved money/time/etc.

But of course, so often when the real intention is garnering awards or attention, there's a degree of lip-service paid to "achieving client objectives."

The problem is, I don't think that many clients are aware that they can--and should--go to a design firm and say "we want to do this specific thing," and then expect it to be done.

Unless or until graphic designers voluntarily shoulder responsibility for a project's success or failure, design firms will more than likely be regarded as anchovies on the giant pizza that is brand.

As far as business accountability goes, firms have been trying to quantify the value and effects of design for decades. There are hundreds of ways to interpret and analyze the results -- but as a designer, I'm not sure I trust or believe any of them 100%. So for me, business accountability comes down to one project at a time, one client at a time.

But more important to me is accountability to the craft of design. Am I contributing anything to the profession as a whole? Does my work for my clients add value to the design community? Am I making a difference as a designer?

I don't know -- but I do know that I like anchovies.

Hmm...interesting thought, Tan. That said, I'm not sure if I agree. When I hire a plumber, I hope they are meeting my needs in terms of budget, goals and craftsmanship rather than focusing on adding something to the profession of plumbing as a whole.

Of course, good craftsmanship, by default, should accomodate both, I suppose.

I'm not advocating one over the other. I guess I'm just saying I prioritize one over the other -- or that one is more achievable. Or, hell...I'm too busy today to think too deeply about the meaning of design. Ironic, huh?

I think this is a rather interesting topic, I just had a former student interview me hoping I could validate an idea she had that most designers don't take target audiences seriously enough. At first I was a little taken a-back by her line of questioning but I started to think that there are a couple of studios that seemingly get pretty high-profile jobs based more on their style and because of these projects, they gain some sort of celebrity status in the industry. Now, that could be a completely wrong assumption but I think unfortunately the award shows, annuals and magazines perpetuate this idea of style by showing a lot of work that looks cool, but there are hardly ever explanations on why it worked for the client/project.

I would like to think that accountability would fall into most designers' personal code of ethics--even if it isn't backed up by metrics--it certainly paves the way for repeat clients which are most studios' bread and butter. Results just don't seem to be a popular topic and maybe they should be. While I wouldn't say this one student was a good sample, I really don't like the idea that the wrong impression is being given to young designers as a whole.

What's interesting, is that by taking your audience dead-serious, you greatly expand your ability to do some totally kick-ass shit. I mean, anything that comes out of Crispin Porter, Goodby, Ogilvy, Wieden...is well-grounded in the audience and on-target (usually) in terms of business objectives. Those agencies consistently do powerful, influential work. And in most (most!) instances the style, if its present at all, fits with the audience and objectives.

That said, I've also seen people use audience research and strategy to JUSTIFY bland and boring work. That's not excusable either.

Strategy, research, accountability--all of that should be liberating and push the creative quality well over the top.

> Without accounting

> any system set up to handle the accounting

Sorry, just a quick smak dab at Darrel (for all his graphic design "corrections" — it's not accounting, it's accountability, unless you are talking taxes.

Now to the serious stuff:

Should design firms be more accountable for what they do, and if so, how?

Yes they should. How? I have no fucking clue. This is a question I have always had, what is a way to measure the positive or negative effect that a designer's work has on a business? There is no easy way to gauge the repercussions of a well designed brochure, not even for a purdy annual report. I have no solutions, but I strongly believe that there should be some way to hold a designer's work accountable — that would help separate the good designers from the bad ones. Objectively.

Accounting

1. A narrative or record of events.
1. A reason given for a particular action or event: What is the account for this loss?
2. A report relating to one's conduct: gave a satisfactory account of herself.
3. A basis or ground: no reason to worry on that account.

So, accounting and accountability go together. You need to account for your actions if you are going to be concerned about accountability.

This is a question I have always had, what is a way to measure the positive or negative effect that a designer's work has on a business?

Ask the business. Before undertaking a project, ask the client how we can measure the success of this endeavor. The reality, of course, is sometimes the client isn't interested in measuring anything, either.

I think if the business strategy/defining stage is done well, it makes it a lot easier to measure results.

Oh...and I agree that it's hard to measure success with things like Annual Reports. You can probably ask around to see how investors reacted to it, but I'm sure it's a next-to-impossible task to actually measure direct benefits to the company based on the visual design of the AR.

Sure, bring out the dictionary.

I have a burning hatred for the soft sciences - such as sociology, psychology, and yes, marketing.

There is no concrete way to tie profits to design/advertising. I could cite numerous examples of philosophers that claim that there is no objective value in art - and that is the fundamental problem of all the soft sciences - they take something that is highly subjective, such as social interactions, feelings, and opinions and try to make them into something objective. People like good design. What is good design? Everyone will give you a different answer. It seems silly to try to figure out what, then, really is good design since no one will ever agree.

So should designers be held accountable? Yes. But only in the sense that the person who hired them likes what they did. If you do something for a client that doesn't like your work, then you've failed as a designer. It isn't your responsiblility to make things that everyone likes. That should be left to the marketing people. Unless you're both, then you should just shoot yourself right now and do us all a favor.

I've won a few awards... but the ones I am most proud of did not come from a design-oriented show. They came from the IABC Bronze Quills. Because this organization is focused on communication, half the entry is a project summary detailing what the piece was supposed to accomplish, how it did budget wise, what the response was from the audience and so forth. In other words... did you communite the client's end message effectively, in terms of both project cost and customer response, and did they make a wise investment in hiring you/your firm?

Now that's the kind of accountability I would like to see in the AIGA or Adfed shows.

..... it lost part of my post.

The IABC is engaged primarily in furthering communication, so their show reflects that. Half the entry is a detailed project summary discussing what the objective was for the project, what the budget was, how the audience responded etc. In other words, did your design meet the client's needs in a cost-effective and measurable fashion?

When I interview for jobs, I make sure that potential clients/employers understand why these awards are special. Communication (i.e. effectively achieveing the client's goals) is an intergral part of every designer's job and if you aren't willing to admit that and be accountable for it... go be a fine artist.

Design is both a process and a craft. As a process, if executed correctly, there are inbuilt stages to both define and measure the results from your work. And every time you can show whether your process was successful or not. This is done by the criteria or factors you set out in the beginning.

As a craft - it has to be incredibly difficult to show whether one type of execution is better over the other, but again, within the process of design this is easier to accomplish.

Being a designer without a full process of design (research, concept and design) is setting yourself up for failure to meet client expectations. Too many people don't do this - or do it badly. Often it is the individual designer on their own, who can't afford to adopt a process to measure this performance.

If you do something for a client that doesn't like your work, then you've failed as a designer.

This isn't true. Not strictly. If you've failed to do something for the client's customer then you might have really failed. Obviously if the client won't pay you - then you've screwed up. But a lot of the time, graphic designer's are developing concepts and systems for customers of our clients.

It isn't your responsiblility to make things that everyone likes.

Absolutely - being all things to all people is a recipe for mediocrity. As said by Micheal Porter of some prominent Business School which I feel I shouldn't mention here.

I'm not insinuating that the quality of creativity--design, advertising, whatever--can be measured with numbers and metrics, but its effectiveness sure as hell can. And should be. Otherwise its just bullshit, and the people who pay designers money do not and should not settle for that.

Additionally, I'd like to see this industry progress beyond taking its rewards from a client liking the work created for them. This is nice, and its something that I always strive for and it makes my day in many ways when someone really appreciates you taking them seriously enough to make them happy. But that's not enough. And as mentioned above, it is of the utmost importance that the audience, the people who react and make decisions based on what they see and hear, like the work. Most people understand the messages sent their way; whether or not they like or trust them is another thing, and I personally believe that we fail utterly when we create things that insult or lie. Does anyone intend to do that? No, I don't think so. But I frequently hear others say "people are idiots," and that's a bad start--because understanding isn't enough.

Trust is invaluable. Trust builds confidence and that leads to loyalty. When design can consistently prove its capable of doing that, then those who commission design won't think of it as an extraneous, special-occasion expense. They'll see it as being totally, completely, 100% invaluable.

I don't think we have any responsibility to know what a client's customers want. That's their responsibility, and if they don't know that they're doomed to failure.

Sure, perhaps in the end we are designing for the customers. But I don't think we should take into account anything but the fact that they're human beings. I'm thinking mostly about legibility issues here, but I'm sure there are other design choices that are common to all people.

There's a big difference between trying to please everyone and doing things that everyone can understand.

I don't think we have any responsibility to know what a client's customers want. That's their responsibility, and if they don't know that they're doomed to failure.

Then by default you consider that designers to not be held accountable for what they do for their clients.

You have made an oversimplified position of designing for the client's customers. This doesn't mean you have to "design for everyone" - most organizations have a target customer and understand the fundamentals of positioning and marketing.

I would disagree with you to say, if we are in agreement with the client to collaborate and design something for their customers, then as designers we absolutely have a responsibility to know and understand what their customers want and need.

Without it we'd be delivering something irrelevant and academic.

> I don't think we have any responsibility to know what a client's customers want. That's their responsibility, and if they don't know that they're doomed to failure.

I thought that's what we are here for. We [designers] tend to forget we are designing for our client's clients — not for our client Sadly, our client's tend to forget that too from time to time and put their preferences and needs before those of their customers.

>Sure, perhaps in the end we are designing for the customers.

Not perhaps.

We're talking target audience 101 here. Knowing the client's customer base is key to effective design.

But what a design firm promises on behalf of the client, the client must ultimately fulfill. We can only hope that they deliver what we said they will deliver.

Sure, perhaps in the end we are designing for the customers.

Not perhaps.

one obviously does not exclude the other. thats why we designers compromise all the time. we make our client happy even though we sometimes feel another solution would serve their clients better. i think what makes the difference is how open a client is. at what point will they get us involved. if we design what they have set-out to do, we might come too late to the party. but, if they realize that we could get involved earlier on and help them develop strategy, we can achieve better results. which kinda goes back to debbie's report on the harvard class and why the class for those who participated was such a great experience. in order to get involved early we need to understand better what these people are after, what they are about. how they think, analyze. and how they value design. it's where designers split into the categories of a) the ones that implement a strategy compared to b) those who help form a strategy. if we just implement. we'll always have the excuse that well.. we just did what the client wanted. if we are involved in the whole process, we won't have that excuse and we'll be held accountable. (plus we'll need to defend our solutions in this brutal forum). but on the flipside i think the payoff can be so much greater as well.

anyway,

ps

> if we just implement. we'll always have the excuse that well.. we just did what the client wanted. if we are involved in the whole process, we won't have that excuse and we'll be held accountable.

Nice Peter, very well said. I have to agree, we use too much the "we were told to do so" cop-out as an excuse for not pushing ourselves harder. It works wonders though — that's why it's so popular.

>plus we'll need to defend our solutions in this brutal forum

Yes, that is the toughest part. Debbie (BK) and David W (UPS) made it out alive — too bad it doesn't happen more often.

It's looking at it like a 101-level course that I think might be problematic--prattling off a few stats and traits regarding age, income, race and gender, and spending habits only creates a stale, not-quite-human portrait of a human being.

I see where you're coming from luumpo--I don't agree with all of it, but fundamentally I get your position. The thing is, its hard to figure out what those very human characteristics are, and then talk about them and not be trite about it. Most design firms don't employ people who are good at discovering that; some don't think about it. Some just leave it up to the client. That's fine, but you won't be able to do a lot of the things you might want to, or even imagine doing things you never would have considered.

Read "Truth Lies and Advertising: The Art of Account Planning" by Jon Steele. Good book. Though I'm sure no one will pick it up.

My whole point here was that designers can be (and honestly, I think should be) significantly more relevant to what our clients are doing and how they think about day-to-day situations. Like I've alluded to before, I don't have a whole helluva lot of experience, so maybe some of my thoughts are COMPLETELY off-base, but...I think designers should assume a lot of responsibility. As much as they possibly can, in fact.

I also think compromise should go completely out the window--how many designers hate to compromise? Pretty much all of them. What's the solution? How about assuming more responsibility and therefore earning more trust and more power and thus the opportunity to say "this is the best solution. Trust me. There's no need to futz around with anything else, this is what works."

As long as designers continue to resist taking the responsibility, and as long as they continue to let clients make decisions for them, I don't think we're ever going to be more than a peripheral element of a much larger plan. This isn't to take on the Terry-Irwin "Designers can do anything!" bullshit, but, for instance--client wants to sell more stuff, they'll probably hit an advertising agency first. It's not just the media capabilities (not all agencies have them), its that agencies...typically take more responsibility. And yes everyone, graphic design, while I definitely believe it is an "art," is also intimately tied to commerce and it damn well better perform. God knows more agencies could use decent design on their horribly-produced ads.

But, I have a feeling that while many designers say they want to be taken more seriously, more understood...I'm not sure that's really true. Or, they just don't want to acknowledge what might be necessary to reach that level, or go through the process of achieving it. I don't know.

Somehow, I'm beginning to think that there was absolutely no point in starting this discussion in the first place.

we use too much the "we were told to do so" cop-out as an excuse for not pushing ourselves harder. It works wonders though — that's why it's so popular.

agreed. and i use it as well. there are instances however i battle with my clients. there are clients for me that are worthwhile the battle and i want that accountability. ideally all of our clients will fall into that categorie someday. and thats what i made a decision to work towards. than there are other clients that i drag along on my client list where i often just give in. because they don't get the value that a designer can bring to the table. and some sad cases that never will. so they turn into a short-term cash infusion for me with no accountability attached. the problem of course is that they provide money in the bank, but they also water down my reputation. which in the long run might hurt more.

But, I have a feeling that while many designers say they want to be taken more seriously, more understood...I'm not sure that's really true. Or, they just don't want to acknowledge what might be necessary to reach that level, or go through the process of achieving it. I don't know.

to me its the difference between the designers out there that are afraid that anyone with a computer and photoshop can do what they do. or the other group that moves forward.

Somehow, I'm beginning to think that there was absolutely no point in starting this discussion in the first place.

i think a lot of designers never ask themselves the question of accountability. personally i think its a great topic as it makes you look at your work. maybe look over your mission statement. and maybe make some adjustments because of it.

ps

Bradley - I think this is a fucking important discussion, and I hope I am not misunderstanding your tone this time in saying that I am also disappointed that it hasn't had the same attention as other discussions lately. Perhaps people are busy or burnt out.

I think this is an important topic because it ties into so many other issues, like ps's comment about being taken seriously. And your own about comprimising. A lot of it has to do with a designer willing to be accountable for their work.

Personally I would have headlined the discussion, Graphic Designers Don't Think. Much of the time I have found that a majority of graphic designers I know don't think about the client work they are about to embark on. The jump into the work with little attention to the details beyond the mechanics of it and perhaps the need to get paid. This is "expression" and it might as well be art.

This infuriates me because the same designers are disappointed that they aren't valued within industry practice or that clients simply don't get design. Well - who cares, they just produced a piece of, albeit beautiful but nonetheless, art.

I've found when I've worked with other designers, like product designers or architects that there is a very different approach to design and consideration of performance and success. And yeah - even in advertising in the US they've now adopted account planning. (incidently - Saatchi and Saatchi have long practiced financial accountability with their work and often seek to be paid a percentage of the positive impact their work has made on their client's business - I'll look for the references for this)

So why do graphic designers continue to bitch about the lack of awareness about the value and importance of design? Why does the industry have to continuously rant about how important design is? This is not because clients, C-level execs or companies don't believe this to be true, but because in actual fact a majority of the designers they come across are individuals who prefer to work in isolation, hate to compromise and demand a "creative brief" in order to work. A generalization I apologise - but it's this wide-spread impotent process that fucks things up and its adoption by the majority of graphic designers out there.

Yep - I'm saying it, and here of all places, but too many graphic designers continue to work much in the same way as a specialized craftsperson might, like perhaps a typographer or potter. That's not to say they don't "think" but the process there might have more to do with expression than collaboration with a client.

Again - most of the graphic designers I know spend a remarkably small amount of time doing any discovery for their work, setting up no criteria to measure the deliverable's performance after delivery. A majority of them don't read outside of the graphic design magazines that exist and there is such a hatred of marketing people (granted, for years of misuse) that these designers continue to get isolated inside corporate america (and Europe too).

So should designers be accountable for their work - absolutely, and especially graphic designers, who have for so long enjoyed the freedom of being crafts people who could speak to the intricacies of type, printing, illustration, visual communication and so on. Graphic designers aren't stupid but they've isolated themselves inside business by saying they don't want to think about business. They don't want to think about strategy, brand or marketing. They want to think about the details or mechanics of their work.

I'm losing my train of thought - I type too slow, and make too many mistakes, and I am certain I've lost most of the seven readers.

But I believe that our continuing discussion should explore not only how designers should become more accountable within their work but also why. Unfortunately it seems that only Luumpo has an opposing argument here.

> I am also disappointed that it hasn't had the same attention as other discussions lately. Perhaps people are busy or burnt out.

I think the fact that this discussion is "low" on comments is because it is a really fucking hard question to answer. Even if most designers here had the time to answer, I'm sure most are hesitant to do so, because it makes us look really hard at what we have been doing throughout our career up to this point. And some people might not be that happy about what they see.

I am hesitant to get all preachy because it would be very hypocrit of me to do so — when the reality is that many times I drop the ball and let clients figure out their own shitty mess, instead of being accountable of my responsibilty as a consultant and a business partner. My thoughts many times when I think I'm not getting the "respect" from clients is "Fuck it, it's their silly business and they can push it faster down the drain for all I care." It's just a cop-out. And I'm as gulity of it as 100% of the people here.

> designers they come across are individuals who prefer to work in isolation, hate to compromise and demand a "creative brief" in order to work.

It's hard to break ages and ages of long-standing tradition Damien. I do think it's time to change. I strongly believe graphic design is a craft, and only few do it very well. But it's time to evolve that craft into something more — more accountable, for this discussion's sake.

>Unfortunately it seems that only Luumpo has an opposing argument here.

I'm not sure what kind of "opposing arguments" you want to hear. That we shouldn't be accountable? Just for the hell of it?

> It's looking at it like a 101-level course that I think might be problematic

No, you misunderstood me completely there Bradley. I was just making the case that its absolutely crucial to assume the responsibility of knowing the client and the customer -- that it's one of the most basic and important credence to good design. I wasn't suggesting that it was elementary in any way -- on the contrary, it's one of the hardest things to grasp.

Damien -- you're right. This is a very important discussion. Being accountable for my work is one of the primary reason why I chose to start my own firm. It's a lesson in maturity for designers who realize over the years that "managing" projects is not enough -- that there has to be more involvement and ownership of the things you produce and the client relationships that your nurture and work so hard to develop. This all ties in to accountability.

Don't fret Bradley. Very good discussion. I will add more to the conversation when I get a chance. Promise.

I'm wondering if there is a bifurcation is this topic, accountability and truly understanding your client's business/their target audience. While one is part of the other, they can be two different topics.

The funny thing was after this discussion started, I had to run home to let the washer repair man in. He was this very odd, talkative man and when he was done with his examination we were discussing repair options and he said, "Look, I can replace that seal. It will cost $250, but you really don't need it. I could try to talk you into it and you might take my word for it but the next time I come out, you may quiz me a little harder about costs--eventually you will figure out that I gouged you. It comes down to accountability, I have to be able to look at myself when I shave and like what I see."

If my ears could have rocked forward on my head, they would have. Here is this repair guy talking about the very thing this thread is about. It comes down to this: If a client is asking us to help them achieve some goal, well god* we better be doing our honest best to do that. It is our professional responsibility.

I think someone mentioned the human element in another discussion, I think it plays into this discussion too. While on the surface what we do is designing for a business but we are really helping someone do something that they don't have the skillset for and thus making their day better/easier. And when successful, that to me is the most rewarding.

Maybe that is at least the "why." And I fear that it got lost in the boom.

Tan--

Sorry about that, I totally muffed what you were saying and what you meant. Hate it when I do that. NOW I'm seeing where you were going.

From your perspective with AIGA, how well do you think that organization is doing, in regards to "enlightening" business, etc.? For all the poo-pooing it got (much of it from me), Debbie's experience at the HBS conference seemed like...the right idea. A step in the right direction. The logical thing to do. And speaking of which, where the hell are you Deb?! It's not that ALL business is bullshit, and its not that ALL research is bullshit, but when its done poorly it really pisses me off.

Just as law has the bar, accountants have the CPA exam, architects the AIA, designers do need an organization that may not necessarily "certify," but one that stands as a professional force, a sort of representation...I mean, I don't know specifically what this is or should be. AIGA is out there, and some people like it, some people don't. There are things about it I dislike, but I think those can be solved or just ignored.

> Just as law has the bar, accountants have the CPA exam, architects the AIA, designers do need an organization that may not necessarily "certify," but one that stands as a professional force, a sort of representation... I mean, I don't know specifically what this is or should be.

If it doesn't necessarily need to "certifiy" then you have been looking at it all this time — the AIGA is it Bradley.

(For the record, I did not start it this time)

Oh, Paddy, you have yourself the best plumber in the world.

If it doesn't necessarily need to "certifiy" then you have been looking at it all this time — the AIGA is it

not much time today to participate, but enough for a short blurb... i think aiga at its current state might not be it. unless they offer an "aigaPlus" or something that requires a certain amount of education. i think aiga does not mean anything to the outside world unless it asks for some qualifications. don't get me wrong, i do think aiga is a great thing and i think they are heading in a good direction. but i think there should be different levels of membership. just as laundry detergent comes in regular and ultra+...

ps

Ok, I can answer a bit of this (busy day).

I think the AIGA tries to be all things to all people. As a result, there are times when the organization forgets that it's a professional organization first and foremost -- in other words, that its responsibility for supporting the business of design should be priority number one.

Of course, there are a number of facets that are very important to our industry -- community welfare, civic responsibility, environmental responsibility, and political responsibility. But at the end of the day, for most of us, design is a commercial business and career. We get paid to design stuff for people so they can, in turn, sell something.

To make sense of their dreary business lives, many AIGA members prefer to deal with more "emotional," social and political issues, rather than tackle the much harder facets of business responsibility and accountability. And those of us who choose to do so openly, are brandished as money-grubbing, soul-less, corporate slaves. There are a number of threads on SU that have been nothing more than soapboxes for what I term "design martyrs". Don't get me started.

AIGA has tried, but have been largely ineffective. It's not AIGA's fault by any means, but their ambiguity from board to board assures continuation of these mixed messages when it comes to leadership. It pains me to say that, because I admire so many of the people doing their best to run the thing. But Jesus, every fucking year there's a new cause that the organization gloms onto and touts as the new war cry. This year was no different.

Anyway, back to this rant, the answer is yes, I think that AIGA has tried to tackle the issue of equating business value to design. In a member survey a couple of years ago, 79% of members listed that as their primary request of AIGA. But then came 9/11, then the war, and then the economy tanked. So no one seemed to care anymore, including the national board. The events that were put on across the country were stuff like Anti-war poster event, and other social and politically-centric events. No more mention of business and design accountability. So once again, it seems that everyone who's trying to run a responsible, profitable design business is on their own.

And as to "certification" or accreditation -- ha! Don't get me started on that one either.

And yes, the Harvard thing was a very good step in the right direction. I really applaud it, and deeply regret that I wasn't a part of it.

But at $8K, the cost of it was definitely a barrier for entry to all but 45 design leaders. So what does that say to the other general membership of 14,955. Again, unintentional mixed messages.

i think aiga does not mean anything to the outside world unless it asks for some qualifications.

The issue isn't one of being qualified, it's one of of supporting the industry as a whole. Most people that hire designers, I don't think, really look to see whether or not a person is 'qualified'. Either they like them, or their work, and hence they're hired. I don't ask my plumber for any sort of certification. I just want to know if they can do the job I need done with the budget I have.

As for selling to business, does anyone remember the magazine @issue? I haven't seen it in a few years, and I'm not even sure if it's still printed. I think it was done by a paper company. Anyways, it was an excellent little magazine in that it was bascially dedicated to graphic design and how it helps business seen from the POV of businesses.

tan,

start saving. harvard will happen again. i agree that the 8K is a barrier. it'll depend on what you think you'll gain from it. i personally went because i felt with the clients that i'm going after, it would pay off at least ten-fold. (hopefully much more than that. ) considering other conferences, where you pay $700-$1500 (plus hotel etc.) i do feel it is really not that overpriced as there was substance there. most design events you look at someone elses work and think "wow, i want to do that" or "hey, i could do it better" and other than a little mingling you don't get much else out of it. now, i don't think harvard has to be the only answer. there can be events as such staged -- but for less. of course you won't have the harvard prestige attached to it.

ps

> start saving. harvard will happen again.

once again, there goes the 50" plasma home theater system. shit.

The issue isn't one of being qualified, it's one of of supporting the industry as a whole. Most people that hire designers, I don't think, really look to see whether or not a person is 'qualified'. Either they like them, or their work, and hence they're hired. I don't ask my plumber for any sort of certification. I just want to know if they can do the job I need done with the budget I have.

i tend to think that it could matter. a plumber might not be the best comparison.

As for selling to business, does anyone remember the magazine @issue? I haven't seen it in a few years, and I'm not even sure if it's still printed. I think it was done by a paper company. Anyways, it was an excellent little magazine in that it was bascially dedicated to graphic design and how it helps business seen from the POV of businesses.

used to be by potlatch, and now sappi. supposedly it was not supposed to die in the merger. chances are you'll find it on their website. used to be a little pentragram heavy as they were behind it.

@issue is no longer a Sappi thing. Last I heard, it's now its own editorial entity, published under some banal name like "Corporate Publications Inc" or something like that.

I haven't seen an issue since last year. Either they scaled their circulation way down, or it's dead in the water. It's a real shame either way.

In a way, I liked that it was Pentagram heavy. For me, that validated the magazine's design credentials -- that it wasn't produced by a conglomerate brand house, advertising, or PR agency.

What really sucks is that you can't search for '@issue' on google.

*sigh*

Found it: @issue

I was almost right -- it's Corporate Design Foundation.

But it looks like the site has not been updated since 2001. Not a good sign. But at least it's still up.

Damien--sorry, I was in the middle of working (gotta love freelance!) and totally missed your post. Love what you had to say! Very poignant.

This is what I like about Speak Up--people here think, and, well...speak their minds. Damn. And for those of you who come to this site and read it but don't post--post, dammit! I know you're out there. I talked to one of you tonight.

Tan, its good to hear your impression and analysis of the AIGA...I think that I personally, and I know we exchanged comments about this months ago, have had negative feelings towards it for a long time. Never really understood the source of what caused those sentiments, but I got some continually lousy vibes from the whole deal and found myself resistant to joining or paying a membership fee. Now I actually see why certain things happen and how it becomes more and more complex and mixed up. That can change though.

One problem that I've seen is that designers tend to focus on the mechanics of designing a mite bit too much. Don't get me wrong...the tools and craft of this profession are of the utmost importance, so I'm not complaining about people who tweak type (partially because I'm a very guilty party...) constantly. There's a beauty to the discipline of design and its what so entrhalled me with it.

BUT, more and more people in this profession are thinkers and doers. Or they have the capacity to be. The solution to this is really simple: think about how many times you say you "can't do something," or don't even consider things because they're not possible, or its not what you do, or whatever. I do it a lot. Way too much. Sometimes, this is caused by an attitude at the top--I've dealt with creative directors who played the "we can't" card, and I know many more people who've dealt with worse for a longer period of time.

Thing is though, we CAN. We're designers. We make stuff. Crispin Porter thought, we can put cutesty headlines like "I'm not wearing any underwear" or "I'm a sensitive type of guy" on Molson beer labels. DMB&B St. Louis (albeit 30-40 years ago...) figured they could put a Budweiser label on the bottom of a swimming pool or put it on a towel. And they did. And people liked it. Fallon made short films for BMW. Levi's made two-minute long commercials and aired them on network TV. Cahan & Associates made an annual report that was a children's story.

This is a business, like Tan has pointed out. We're in this to make money and to make a living--I'll bet we can make a BETTER living by trying to go beyond though, opening ourselves up to possibility. This, I know, HAS GOT to sound so fucking airy and ethereal and for that I apologize, but still...if a client comes to you because they essentially want to make more money, why must that be limited to just a package, a brochure, a mailer, an ad, a catalog or a web site? Look, I'm the last person to advise reinventing the fucking wheel every fucking day, but at the same time, designers get to do what almost no one else does. They get to spend a little bit of time thinking about what they do; maybe they gladly think about it outside of work. I know its flakey, but...if there's one thing I'd hope for, its that people consider the ludicrous every now and then. You know, I mention Crispin Porter a lot, but they also deserve it--they've earned the attention they've captured and the business they've won. How did that happen? Well, because they give their clients more ideas than any other agency; while I personally don't know how I feel about the gang-bang approach, what that demonstrates above anything else is that they give a shit. A genuine one. Lots of ideas. More ideas. Better ideas.

One thing that designers excel at is being anal. So I'm sure that if designers opened up this playing field a bit, they'd be real darn good at putting a cap on it when things just got retarded.

But really, when you sit down and think about it, eeverything is possible.

Okay, now that I'm all done with that, I'm going to share in the fish-in-the-barrel shooting contest and slam AIGA for the "there are more important things than commerce...like spreading left-wing anti-capitalist propaganda." Well, I'm a liberal and I'm also a capitalist. This is fucking capitalism people and while everyone may not get an equal sized piece of pizza, capitalism helps make it a bigger pizza. And ideally, y'all get an equal opportunity to cut your own piece. Don't ask me why I've been making pizza metaphors lately.

Either way, AIGA has got to stop pandering to the small sect out there of people who obviously lack a sense of security about what they do, which leads to the hardcore bullshit aspect of this profession. Like the Adbusters crap. Seriously. If that was the face of design, we'd all be dead because businesses would take one look and figure out something else to do.

If people don't like advertising and commercial design, its because of designers. So rather than just drop it altogether, as Adbusters would have us do, I say--do better work. Do more interesting things. Do stuff that resonates with people, that respects them, that they trust. You do that, and I guarantee Adbusters will vanish in a heartbeat.

OK, does the chit-chat mean you guys are done with this discussion? I always seem to come in at the end.

Too bad... 'cause here's what I don't get — the posts in this thread seem to use the terms responsibility and accountability interchangeably and both are referenced only academically with little or no practical application.

Responsibility (as it relates to design) is about awareness, sensitivity, education. It's about understanding your clients' business, embracing their mission, and connecting with the target audience. This seems like basic stuff (101?) and maybe it can't be said enough, since this is where our profession often falls down, but on this site it seems like preaching to the choir.

Accountability, on the other hand, is about reward and punishment. At least that's how a great many business people would define it.

No one has suggested (yet) that if I design a package and the product doesn't sell, that I should refund my fee. Or (better yet) if the product goes flying off the shelf, my fee gets tripled! But c'mon...isn't that exactly what accountability means to the average business person? What are you guys talking about? Tell me if you think the difference is just semantics, but otherwise please elaborate.

Sometimes it seems like designers want extra credit for doing work that makes a difference (impacts the bottom line) but have you ever heard of an agency or studio making a guarantee on the effectiveness of their product? I'm kidding of course, but I may have a point.

My point may be pointless unless our thread's author can shed light.

Bradley -- in one of your earlier posts you rather blithely state that the effectiveness of a design "sure as hell can... be measured with numbers and metrics." Oh really? I'm not so sure this is always true, I know it isn't always practical, and at the very least it sure as hell isn't widely known how.

What do you really mean by accountability?

OK Bradley, you got your long post in before I did. The chit-chat comment was about the @issue stuff above.

After reading your post (which is cloyingly wonderful) I'm convinced more than ever that you just long for more intelligent, thoughtful design across the board. Dude, get a job at Crispin Porter, OK?

Michael--

Yeah, you do have a point. I'm running to go drink booze right now (very important) but I'll comment more. Not while booze-induced though.

And to your second statement. Right again--not always can it be measured. But when it can...I think it should. There are other things that I wasn't too clear about, sadly; for instance, a lot of this I think revolves around the audience, and whether or not you really know who you're talking to, or you know the general characteristics built through warranty registration cards and other meaningless tripe. You obviously don't want to end up in a world where you test the living shit out of everything; just as there's no numeric scale for a dude's level of lust for a hot woman, there's not necessarily a built in metric for every single design or creativity in general. Often what tests well, bombs, and what tests poorly kicks ass.

This, I realize, is a broad topic. But...I've really liked what people have said, and no, Michael, I sincerely hope the discussion is not over. Chit-chat can be fun though!

Booze time. Later.

The 2nd half of a bottle awaits me too, so we'll pick this up later, but let me add one parting comment.

The original thesis of this thread and your follow-ups (Bradley) focused on better design through preparation, education, testing, etc. whereas a great many of the other posts ignored this and went straight to after-the-fact effectiveness. These are two different issues in regards to the semantic question of responsibility vs. accountibility.

Back from boozin'--all three drinks, oddly, were free for me tonight. Way to go. Anyway, I'm not drunk or anything but I do have to get to work tomorrow morning.

I think both sides--before the fact and after the fact--are worth considering and looking into further. For awhile now there have been a number of voices proclaiming the importance of "EQ" and the diminished value of "IQ," and I'm inclined to agree but so often in these instances, there's way too much weight put on one or the other. You gotta balance both.

The first step in all this is probably preparation and accumulating knowledge from which to build a solid strategy. Of course, there's nothing wrong with exploring creative options before everything is said and done; that can likely have positive effects. And all this...really isn't too difficult. It's just a matter of doing it, thinking harder, spending more time uncovering facts, whims, notions, threads, and making something coherent out of it. The last firm I worked for seemed to try to do a lot of this, but very little of it was communicated that clearly to everyone involved. Such is life. I also know of firms out there who do nothing but research and data gathering and speculating...that is, no tangible deliverables. These firms are more of the "Capital 'D' Design," people who perform extensive ethnographic research and that sort of thing--which is great, but half the battle is coming up with something and applying it.

Anyway...more later.

>And speaking of which, where the hell are you Deb?!

>Bradley - I think this is a fucking important discussion, and I hope I am not misunderstanding your tone this time in saying that I am also disappointed that it hasn't had the same attention as other discussions lately.

>Sure, perhaps in the end we are designing for the customers.

Sorry to come in so late, Bradley. I have been traveling and mostly in meetings for the last week. I think that this is a brilliant discussion. I also think that it is a polarizing topic. Who doesn't want to admit to wanting to be accountable to their work? But how many of us actually are? If as designers we are "supposed" to be serving our clients, where do we draw the line at saying no and giving up the work (ala Fella or Glaser) or doing it because we have a staff to pay, or studio rent, or we need to buy a new color printer? How many of us are that altruistic to the craft?

Rudy's comments in the Harvard discussion gave me a big pause. He is right. I do need to be thinking more about blatant consumerism and the environment in the work that I am doing. That means, perhaps, that I am not as accountable as I should be. At least it does to me. Does that make me less accountable to my clients? In the grand scheme of things, yes. Day-to-day, no, as they are getting the results that they want: increased market share, bigger sales, more shelf impact. It is a tough line to walk and balance both issues. Are any of us thinking about both sides? I am trying, but as Rudy pointed out--I don't know if I can have it both ways.

The irony here is that once you start analyzing it on this level, you have to choose. And something must be sacrificed. If I don't take the work because I am concerned about what my clients are doing to the environment and will only work with clients that I am absolutely sure have the right politics, is there anyone out there that fits that criteria? And then how do I pay the 70 people that work for me? Aren't I accountable to them too?

This may sound defeatist, but it is not. Rudy posed totally compelling, critical questions in the Harvard discussion and they dove-tail straight into accountability. I am now thinking about this every day. It is tough, but it must be done.

So to answer your question, Bradley: totally necessary discussion. Just a hard one for some of us to face.

Hi Debbie,

Yeah, it is a tough one and I just haven't been in the industry long enough to uh, fully absorb that...things like making payroll, rent, fees, expenses, all of that just hasn't entered the equation for me. So...I essentially have somewhat limited room to talk.

I think that as far as being involved in so-called "blatant consumerism" goes...there's actually nothing BAD about it. Nothing at all. It's easy for graphic designers to look at the schlocky design in your average supermarket or Wal-Mart, pick up a copy of Adbusters, and start railing on "consumer culture."

Sigh.

For me, what it comes down to, is doing consumer-oriented work in a better fashion. You can't make a fry box for Burger King look like Ray Gun magazine or something ludicrous like that. That packaging isn't "bad" design. In-n-Out, a popular burger chain, from what I know receives a lot of praise for its somewhat clumsy design...but its independently owned and has a grand total of 175 locations, not thousands, so its "cool" and thus not liable to scrutiny in the same way. That, and their product probably IS better. But its also more expensive and if it were to expand by any significant margin, either they wouldn't remain profitable, or their quality would take a nose-dive. The reality is, our world benefits from big corporations in a lot of ways--thats not to say they should have free reign (c'mon, y'all know I can't stand our president), but corporations are good for a technologically-advanced world with a large population. They're necessary.

What I think is bad is the stuff that deliberately lies, the stuff that is disrespectful, the work that has no real idea of who their audience is and either talks down to them or doesn't speak at all. I talked to a creative director at an agency a couple weeks ago and he went on and on about how difficult it was to convince his General Mills client that making a commercial with people talking about how good a cereal was wouldn't sell cereal. Sometimes, it IS the clients who are the problem. But he found a way around that, because, well...he proved to them that something else was going to work better and was willing (and able, because of his vaunted position) to bet on it.

I firmly believe that good design sells. It moves merchandise. It increases subscriptions. It provides a financial return for the business who pays for it. I think it was Watson Jr. of IBM who said that design can't sell a bad product, but it can maximize the selling potential of a good one. I've always thought that the Adbusters cult suffered from security and self-esteem issues because they seem to be more about proving that design can actually DO something, but they attempt to prove that position by talking about how design "forces" people to buy products. Nevermind that 70% of new products fail. It's just not that simple. And nevermind that no one is ever forced to lay down their bucks for anything.

Yet a lot of design, and even more advertising, isn't so great. For the reasons I mentioned above. I think as communicators we're obligated to know who we're talking to, and if you can really demonstrate that you get that, I think--well, I hope because I honestly don't know--that clients will accept better solutions if there's ample, easily-understood justification for them. Because the work that "gets" the audience, is going to be that much more successful.

Really, design's greatest potential is in commerce. It literally cannot survive without it--if every corporation suddenly abandoned design tomorrow, just put their product in a white box with the name typeset, unkerned of course, in that crappy default Helvetica, the first box to break from that in even the slightest way would sell. Quickly.

Any other view of design is unrealistic. I'm not saying its worthless, but to say that its

"more important" to do socially conscious design (whatever that means) is insane.

So maybe instead of fantasizing about doing other things where the clients aren't as "mean," maybe our best option is to make a concerted effort to improve the quality of the work most of us already do. And that can happen when designers know the audience back and forth, and when they start being accountable to their clients. Tough? Yeah. But its really the only way.