In nearly every discussion of design and its effect on business and society, there’s a tendency to refer to designers (and advertising agencies) as being in the “service industry,” because ostensibly, designers provide a service to commercial enterprises or social organizations or whoever happens to require what we do. It’s as if we don’t really think about it anymore, we just assume that we provide services to paying clients—and naturally, every now and then someone makes a joke about how designers are basically hookers, whoring themselves out to the highest bidder and so forth.
I don’t get it.
In addition to the designer’s everlasting quest for validation and appreciation, there is also the designer’s never-ending complaints about feeling marginalized or misunderstood by their clients and the world in general. So to combat that relevant problem, we talk about educating the client, we discuss methods of making people in general understand our “service” and why its worthwhile. Sometimes there’s more grumbling about it than other times but I’d argue that its an on-going issue that we haven’t quite figured out how to correct, and rather than justify the situation by claiming that “people just don’t understand what we do,” the responsibility falls on designers entirely. And the problem stems from how we think about what we do, and how we describe the role we play.
Design isn’t a service at all, rather, its more like manufacturing—we do, after all, depend on making things and executing ethereal ideas, bringing abstract messages to life through books, posters, ads, mailers, objects, web sites, and whatever else might be relevant to the challenge we’re given. Process is important, process is good, process can determine the outcome of the final product, but it ultimately comes down to what you DO and what you CREATE. There’s no middle ground here, the most complex and dynamic “process” in the world doesn’t amount to jack squat unless the end result is brilliantly produced. Obviously we all realize this but we’re not doing much good for the field by thinking about it in illogical terms.
Another danger of thinking about design as being a service is that it puts far too much power into the hands of those who know nothing about it—yes, there are still clients who make bizarre color choices and insist on stupid typefaces and the like, we all deal with this frequently. In actual service industries, such as hotels or dining, the “client” traditionally runs the show and we judge good service by how responsive those serving us are, how well they listen to what we want or need. I find that most design firms and advertising agencies operate in this fashion too, excusing the foolish decisions a client might demand by saying “they’re paying for it.” Yes, yes indeed they are, but they’re not paying for an afternoon at the local spa or salon, they’re paying for a product that they don’t understand how to make. A product that services them only in the sense that it provides beneficial results. That’s it.
So forget the notion that we’re “serving” anyone…what we make, what we design should accomplish the objectives set out by the organization soliciting the work. That’s real service. And I’m confident that if people looked at design and advertising as a product, we’d get a lot more respect.
I can't really agree with this completely, Bradley.
Sure, as designers, we don't want to become the "customer is always right" producers, where we execute unwise or ill-informed ideas. And so we're not merely here to "please the client".
But at the same time, we're *not* just churning out objects, because that lessens and devalues our contributions as designers. If clients think that we are little vending machines, where they can push a button marked "brochure" or "logo", and get some little *product*, we've dropped the ball again.
Designers have an insight, a skillset, a methodology--Bradley, you called it a process. Anyone can put together a "product" or thing for a client. But we're paid to create (creative!) solutions to problems, use our visual communication skills to answer a client's needs, even if they don't realize exactly what they are. This process, this high-level clear thinking about communicating emotionally, rationally, specifically to an audience--this is a major thing that makes us so valuable as designers.
So, maybe we're somewhere in the middle--we're providing a service (our creative process leading to design solutions) as well as a product (whatever actual physical object results from our creative methods). But it's got to be a balance, b/c we can get pigeonholed by going too far either way--as Bradley mentioned, making us "yes (wo)men" to our clients, or just becoming little designer factories.
I found a quote (lost the attribution, though) recently that helps me keep this in balance in my mind. Someone said, "Satisfy the unexpressed wish." And that makes sense--because it's a recognition that my job is to provide the client with *something* that meets his/her *felt* needs (produce a product), but also speaks to the *actual* needs (service) that I discover in my graphic design wisdom. That's the balance I try to strike.
On Jun.30.2004 at 09:53 AM