Although I do believe design plays a major role in selling products, this study is flawed in that in no way should one look at one factor (in this case design) as an indicator of stock performance. The stock market, in any country, fluctuates due to many reasons be it interest rates or the weather.

No academic or professional could look at this study and really take it seriously. It attempts to give a good message, but the logic is seriously flawed.

i for one would like to see this type of study done in the u.s. as well, if only for purely selfish purposes. it's good to have statistics like this to present to clients who are reluctant to make budgets for advertising or other design work.

it's basically shoring up what we as designers are already trying to educate our clients of, that the more well-designed the communication piece, the more effective it is. clients (ours at least) are always the most interested in the bottom line--how will this increase sales? so i think that american designers (from my view at a small firm) are not reluctant to consider effectiveness at all; we in fact depend on it to help convince our clients that they need us.

Question #1:

The soft and unfleshed-out answer is that its a cultural thing--Europe tends to be more design-focused and friendly than the U.S., something that I've never been able to fully figure out. I'm not sure where this mentality comes from, but Americans in their quest for functionality (Atlanta, Los Angeles, Microsoft, and Fords aside) often forget that sometimes the "form" IS the "function."

U.S. capitalism, while wildly successful can be amazingly short-sighted; of course, if you're sprinting in a marathon and you still win, it doesn't matter. Things tend to sell very well in this country, and because design can only maximize sales (not save a crappy product), that part is frequently overlooked. Keep in mind, this is a nation that spends relatively little money on arts and culture, its not taken terribly seriously in schools. We don't put a premium on creativity...its viewed as sacrificial, special, not entirely necessary.

Question #2:

This might just be people in general--once you introduce effectiveness and a process for measuring it, most people get nervous. Why? Well, they have to responsible for something, they have hard, specific, defined factors to answer to and that means you can officially declare success...or failure. No one wants to fail.

American designers have an obnoxious tendency to demand that people take them seriously and realize how wonderful they are but they don't actually want to prove that value. We've had innumerable discussions on Speak Up about accountability in one sense or another, we've talked about applying harder standards to the design profession, we've conversed about all sorts of things that can be done. The response at best has been lukewarm. For instance, as I write my response at this very moment, one person has made one comment on this thread. I don't understand why designers are so reluctant, save to say that people in general resist any sort of change when confronted with it.

As Mark Twain says, "A classic novel is a book everyone wants to HAVE read, but that no one wants TO read." Same applies here. People like to have things but they don't like what's involved beforehand.

No academic or professional could look at this study and really take it seriously. It attempts to give a good message, but the logic is seriously flawed.

i don't think its logic is extremely flawed. sure you can't take it at 100%, but in essence its seems to make a valid point. and since it is comparing within the same market index and companies tracked are of various industries, i think it can be used as a good indicator.

It's interesting the British call design firms "consultancies"--I wonder if that makes their positioning different.

Many statistics I encounter have methodological flaws, (mostly baseball related), so I don't have a problem using these in my marketing attempts.

Q1

In a way, I think the financial boom that occurred in this country over the last ten years or so has also brought up the troublesome specter of conservative thinking and values; i.e. a sort of selfishness that blocks progressive insight because the gains of this insight will threaten the power structures at play. Frankly, I also think this conservative phenomenon is also responsible, to a degree, with emergence of neo-modernism, as visual mirroring of this sentiment.

I also think that Europeans, in general, have greater appreciation for the arts because so much of their history and culture is infused with it. For the most part, up until the last 2/3's of the 20th century, America did not have a creative vision or voice, other than re-interpretting European ideas. Thus I think that when most Americans look at abstract/modern art they think, "Hell, my two-year-old could do that!" Whereas, a European (or Asian, etc.) will be inclined to give the artist the benefit of the doubt and see the value in the art. I mean, Americans do have a world-wide reputation of being... well... blunt, self-righteous, and ethnocentric. There, I've said it.

Q2

I would agree with Bradley that most designers, (and here I would say it could also be global, not just American), are afraid of having to be accountable to their clients for results. Most designers are primarily concerned with personal creativity or professional acclaim, and hope that this also translates into business/financial success for their clients. This is easily shown by the high value we place on winning awards.

That's a very apt Twain quote Bradley.

Addendum to Q1

So in relation to design, this same dynamic I think applies with how Europeans perhaps view the role of design and society.

I wonder what our UK participants have to say about this observation. Is this true?

My first thought on an American counterpart to the Design Council was AIGA. They should be directly targeting American businesses and showing them, through studies, through exhibits, through better competitions, what design can do to best serve a company's strategic (and therefore financial) goals. I don't want to turn this into an AIGA thread, but there needs to be an American design organization that is focused more on business and less on visual eye candy.

Q1

I would have to agree that Europe simply has a much longer history infused with art and culture than we do. I think one of the biggest reasons, though, is that the quintessential American Dream is financial, not artistic, in nature. The promise of freedom of choice and the chance to make a better life is what drove most immigrants here, not the chance to create the art they always dreamed of. That culture of success is still what drives this country. The focus on money has warped our sense of rationality. Instead of corporations striving to develop better products and enrich our lives, they focus on ways to maximize dollar value so shareholders won't sell their stock. It's shortsighted, as Bradley stated. As the Design Council study shows, those companies that use the design process as part of their business efforts benefit more than those companies overly focused on the financial picture.

Q2

Research is the dreaded word for designers, isn't it? Research can certainly be valuable. How else can we know what consumers are interested in? The great dilemma is that, as artists, we go on gut instinct, pushing our vision. As business consultants, we need to successfully solve the problem put forth by our client. The threat of research is that it brings other opinions to bear on our creative vision. The downside of research is that it can validate the dumbing-down of our work. The upside is that, used correctly, it opens opportunities for our work to be more successful. We, as designers, have to be more trusting of our audience and our clients need to be more willing to challenge, not simply acquiesce to, their customers.

I'm not sure whether the AIGA can be compared to the Design Council. Afaik, the Design Council (just as the Dutch Designers' Association BNO) also covers industrial design, textile/fashion and interior design. In that light, design plays a different role: it is not 'just' about advertising or communications, it is about the product itself.

The success of 'design aware' companies is based on a combination of cons: these organizations value the role of design in many if not all respects, be it company headquarters, product design, retail design, advertising, packaging, etcetera. If design is considered an asset rather than 'costs', you'd be talking to such a company.

I have one corporate client, and my next biggest client turned over only �16m last year, so I can't really speak up knowlegeably about this coporate study. I do, however, live in the UK, you wanted my tuppence worth.

1 why is this progressive and substantiated thinking going on in the UK and not in the US?

In other words: what the heck are them lapdogs over the pond doin' thinkin'? We're America. We do the thinkin' on this here planet.

;-)

Sorry, Debbie. The way you phrased made me laugh.

2 why are American designers so reluctant to consider effectiveness when assessing design work?

Any designer working for a client who puts their own personal vision ahead of effectiveness probably really wants to be a fine artist but doesn't have the guts to go for it.

-

I also think that Europeans, in general, have greater appreciation for the arts...

Steven, yeah that's pretty much right. I'll just add that Britain's appreciation of Gill Sans & Futura might run a little too deep.

...there needs to be an American design organization that is focused more on business and less on visual eye candy.

Actually, the AIGA launched a program last year specifically focused on business perspectives. The program is called Business Perspectives for Design Leaders and it was developed jointly by the AIGA and Harvard Business School. Peter Scherrer and I were in the charter program and I wrote about it extensively on this site. It was extraordinary. It is being given this year again, and though pricey, it is worth every cent.

while it's definitely true that there is a greater appreciation for arts and culture in europe, I don't think that's the reason for this study's favorable results. the types of companies that favor design and take care to hire good designers tend to also be very well run companies (imho). management at these companies tends to be detail oriented, with good ability to plan and keep sight of long term goals and big picture issues.

I'm sure we've all been approached at one time or another by a frantic client who needs a brand new identity package (or website, or whatever) by the end of the week and, oh, by the way, we can't really pay you much either. and it has to be blue. and use this picture of my dog. these clients rarely get the best from good designers, and often hire bad designers either by mistake or in an effort to save money. so they predictably end up with bad design. but will the bad design cause their downfall? I'd say their poor management will cause their downfall in addition to leading them down the road to poor design.

that's not to say that good design has no effect on a company's public image, sales, or bottom line. of course it does! but I think good design is as much an effect of good management as a cause for good corporate performance.

The past 2 years I've been browsing every now and then through Design Council's website and the range of issues and themes they actually made publications, case studies and articles is really amazing:

Design &

Stopping crime

Health Care

Public policy & government

Education

Ecology

Ahhh yes and Business

I found their are approach really comprehensive, they put a lot of effort reaching other audiences besides designers.

--why is this progressive and substantiated thinking going on in the UK and not in the US?

Other's have already said it, and I agree. It's the Wal-Mart syndrome. We're a nation of short-sighted, over-consuming whores who primarily look at one thing: what's the cheapest I can get product X for. Quality is secondary to price in our society.

--why are American designers so reluctant to consider effectiveness when assessing design work?

Are we talking Graphic Design here? If so, then I'd say it's just a lack of knowlege of how to do so...both on the client's side and the designer's side.

--why is this progressive and substantiated thinking going on in the UK and not in the US?

Other's have already said it, and I agree. It's the Wal-Mart syndrome. We're a nation of short-sighted, over-consuming whores who primarily look at one thing: what's the cheapest I can get product X for. Quality is secondary to price in our society.

--why are American designers so reluctant to consider effectiveness when assessing design work?

Are we talking Graphic Design here? If so, then I'd say it's just a lack of knowlege of how to do so...both on the client's side and the designer's side.

>My first thought on an American counterpart to the Design Council was AIGA.

The AIGA is very well aware of the UK Design Council's efforts and business focus. About 4 years ago, they made some efforts to start collecting definitive case studies of business impacts of design. Though these case studies were smaller in scope than the DC's, to me, they were more useful. But these things take time, perseverance, and an enormous amount of resources.

And while it's great to have 10 yr study of the correlation between design and business performance, most businesses operate on a year-to-year basis. Design ROI is a tough thing to justify as a long-range investment. With the exception of companies driven by design -- like Herman Miller, Apple, Nike, etc. -- most companies engage design on a tactical, short-term level, not on a strategic, long-term level.

Convincing those companies to become long-range partners with design is a tough proposition in this volatile economy. But it's what we're all chasing, is it not?

Thanks, Steven. I still can't remember where I came upon that quote.

I'm glad that the AIGA has this new business-perspective program, but the fact is its not enough. As much as I can enjoy railing on that organization, its not their fault--its the fault of designers and the perpetuated mentalities that are the problem. Leadership in this field typically has been determined by who wins the most awards, and awards, typically, are granted based on other people's impressions of who's doing the coolest stuff and whoever lands upon the neatest style du jour. This is what it is. I like doing cool-looking stuff and frequently spend time developing stylized perspectives and whatnot, I like awards shows, I like flipping through the books from time to time, but the answers aren't there.

It's an unfortunate reality but the onus is on designers to assert their value, not client-types to recognize it automatically. I strongly agree that the American obsession with money can become aimless, but, this is capitalism and we're in business to be profitable. Money, more specifically profit--the expansion of money--drives the rest of the world and we must accept that fact and do with it what we can.

Practically, designers have got to be a lot more accessible. Shit like the "Google Re-Design" that Wired ran last month cannot occur again--all of those iterations were wretched drivel, but it was one of those few times when non-designers were sharply exposed to what graphic designers do, actually associating the work with a creator. Graphic design is like this weird little exotic asylum way too frequently, tucked away in over-designed magazines that make no sense to most people. I don't know what the solution is, but I do know that if you constantly try to justify design, its no different than the high school dork saying to the high school jock "please respect me." You won't get the results you desire.

Another part of this overall plan is a bit harder--I think its vital that children be exposed to art and creativity much earlier on and that it continue to be emphasized AFTER kindergarten. By their very nature artists are never going to be revered in the same way as athletes, but the situation right now is not good--the role of education can never be underestimated.

Convincing those companies to become long-range partners with design is a tough proposition in this volatile economy.

Perhaps its the relatively short history of the U.S. that's behind the preponderance of short-term thinking. Short-term thinking, after all, created the monstrous waste-of-money that was the Y2K problem four-five years ago, and its been the source of numerous other SNAFUs this century in business, social issues, and politics.

I don't really understand why this is. The immediate reaction is to blame technology--that somehow, electronic media has obliterated our patience. I don't think Americans have ever been patient though. While we now live in an age where we expect instantaneous responses to our voice mails and emails, the broader problem--that of get a big profit now, always grow, get bigger sooner and faster--has ALWAYS been infused in our culture. Reversing 200+ years isn't easy. But it isn't impossible either.

Perhaps its the relatively short history of the U.S. that's behind the preponderance of short-term thinking.

But short-term thinking isn't always a bad goal if one's goal is to make a buck and run. In fact, a lot of fortunes have been made on short-term, maximize profit decisions. Enron, for one. A lot of the dot-com boom for a few hundred others. Current energy policies. Current environmental policies. Current trends to outsource labour to drive up profit margins to drive up stock prices for a few dozen more.

There isn't a whole lot of incentive for building long-term companies anymore. It's easier to do it fast and then dump, sell or declare bankruptcy it seems.

The probablem is that unbridaled capitalism desn't necessarily NEED good design. Make as much money as cheaply as you can as fast as you can and let someone else worry about the mess you leave. It's the (new) American way!

I'm glad that the AIGA has this new business-perspective program, but the fact is its not enough.

sure its not enough, but it is something -- and damned good.. if i might add... plus there are plenty of other sources. they might just not be in one place. actually, the aiga also has the gain conference, which at least in the past, paired design and business on the same stage. there are plenty of publications that discuss these issues, but they are not design publications... california management review, harvard business review are a couple of examples. information and knowledge is available, its just a matter of our willingness to step outside our usual circles to find some of it. in addition, what i like about this forum -- Speak Up -- is, that some of these findings are brought back in and are shared and discussed. I don't think i would be spending much time in here if we would simply discuss pms colors and emigre fonts...

ps--

I totally agree. Like I said, the onus is almost entirely on designers themselves. Its just that the organizations they form are often a reflection not of MOST designers, but those who have the loudest voices. And the loudest voices in our industry today aren't necessarily worth listening to...I'm more interested in what Debbie has to say, Weinberger too, than many "famous" designers.

Darrel--

My that was a dark summation of the United States, but it was accurate. Frighteningly so. Change is hard--you know what they say, many smokers will risk death before giving it up. Hell, last night a friend of mine was wearing the patch but still took a few drags. Change is hard. Many people would make the ULTIMATE change and DIE, rather than adjust their behavior. Weird.

>I strongly agree that the American obsession with money can become aimless, but, this is capitalism and we're in business to be profitable. Money, more specifically profit--the expansion of money--drives the rest of the world and we must accept that fact and do with it what we can.

Yes, most of us are in business to be profitable, but it seems that the path to that profitability (these days) is often paved with shameless greed, the selling of one's soul and a complete disregard for the morality and destiny of the people working for/around/with you. And I think that this is what the rest of the world sees in regard to American capitalism. It is a sad and vicious cycle that is continously self-perpetuating, i.e. Worldcom begets Tyco begets Enron, etc. It seems that the idea of "business perspectives" (unfortunately) gets equated with evil. No wonder designers have a hard time with this. Didn't we start out wanting to make the world a better place via design?

For me it comes down to balancing business perspectives and authenticity. The effectiveness of design should not be an obstacle to good design. If you can manage to have both effective design and really good, meaningful design (think James Victore)--I believe we can fully realize the meaning and true purpose of graphic design.

imho, of course

I quickly skimmed the actual report by Design Council. I have to say that it is not easy to dismiss it, as was suggested at the start of this thread. They are establishing design as one of the factors that can improve a company's performance (something that hasn't yet been quantifiable), not attributing design as the only factor.

It's also interesting that they looked at companies that had received design awards and used that as a measuring tool of what they defined as effective users of design. Whereas if this study had been conducted here in the US I doubt that awards would have played such a strong role — simply because of the constant aprehension we show towards awards. That right there is a huge difference and why I think designers would be even quicker to dismiss a US-based study. Which would be ridiculous, but such is life.

I would really like to see a similar study for US companies. And I think this could be a good model to follow and build from.

As someone who works incredibly close to the money, I find this discussion very much what I live everyday. I'd say we are dead on in describing the short-term mentality of the people managing in today's capital markets. I always find it interesting in an industry where we preach patience and long-term investing to our clients, our own mentality is stock-price focused and short-term results to hold on to shareholders. Our owners are German, our managers are American and the winners are the speculator's who invest for the short-term.

This affects design clearly and in a bigger sense branding. It stops being about the audience and become more about politics and positioning internally. I have seen it here in a two-year struggle to rebrand our institutional and retail businesses into one strong brand, versus our current weak brand and a well-known, but somewhat damaged, US brand. I could scream at the top of my lungs how a well-managed design program and an effort to rebuild a strong-brand can make a significant difference in the value of the company but I'm afraid there are too few people who would actually listen.

I haven't read it yet but there's a book and web site out called Beyond Branding that discuss some the issues that come up when we are discussing the future direction of design and branding in terms of the success of business. Also, Chris MacRae provides a fascinating look into the future in terms of success and failure of business and brand.

I am a firm believer that in a world where service organizations are providing a very similar line of services to their clients, the differentiator then becomes design and the value your company bring to a client. And if you can't differentiate yourself from the competition, then your on your way to being marginalized.

I am a firm believer that in a world where service organizations are providing a very similar line of services to their clients, the differentiator then becomes design and the value your company bring to a client. And if you can't differentiate yourself from the competition, then your on your way to being marginalized.

I second this wholeheartedly. Failure to demarcate a unique brand space and create emotional attachment in a competitive marketplace results in the product becoming a price-driven commodity. If you want a real example, consider how Apple has managed to maintain their pricing structure despite the onslaught of cheap Dell and Gateway PCs. Without careful cultivation of their brand, we'd have no attachment to the Mac, and would simply buy the cheapest computer out there, instead of something we love. And while Apple may not own the marketplace, they are very profitable.

Applying a little bit of physics ... Americans run so fast to something ... what are they running from?

Why do we want to be instant millionaires? That kind of thing often ruins your social connections, and at the least, will project you into a different group.

Or maybe we just don't like the way our work is structured? Make a lot of money and be free. If that is the point, why don't we try to change work? It would benefit all of us, not just the few (if any) who become rich.

Design is in essence about appreciating life. Much of American culture is about life passing in a blur. The outcome is no surprise.

Your site is great! It is very impressive. I've enjoyed the visit!