Speak UpA Former Division of UnderConsideration
The Archives, August 2002 – April 2009
advertise @ underconsideration
---Click here for full archive list or browse below
  
Defying Gravity:
When your Company Exists in the Ether Above your Head
Guest Editorial by Ally Gerson, Jennifer Sukis, and Pamela Zuccker of Principle

Do you think the folks over at the US Defense Department could have possibly realized what a profound impact their little experiment in communicating through a computer network would have on shaping history for years to come? Did they sit around in bars and cafés reeling over the possibilities, foreseeing the entire business environment changing and the world becoming drastically smaller? Only recently have we three come to fully appreciate and comprehend what their work has done for us, knowing that without them, firms like ours and the freedoms it affords us in designing our lives would not exist.

Once you’ve been out of school for a few years, sharpened your spurs and met your share of art directors and interns, you begin to appreciate the rare occasion of meeting a fellow design contemporary who shares your passion, goals and ethics. The odds of finding that chemistry in your own town can be unlikely, as was the case with us. Although it took all three partners making our way to the same city and working for the same firm to meet, by the time we were ready to take on the challenge of founding a company together, life had put hundreds of miles between us. But that spark we felt in our first meeting remained years later, along with a commitment to the lives we had created in three distant cities. And just like that, we found ourselves building a slightly varied version of our original plan and set our sights on tackling an even greater challenge — not only starting a new firm but creating a successful structure for a virtual studio.

To give you a visual of how it feels for us to work with people we rarely see, imagine a five storey office. And since we’re imagining, let’s say it’s a lovely little abode by Mies van der Rohe set back in some urban, yet well forested nook of town with a great coffee shop down the street. So you walk in, the first floor is the conference room and one of two places where you could bump into all three partners at the same time. This area is for weekly production meetings, big client introductions and presentations. Walk around, check it out, enjoy. Clients don’t get to go beyond this point so you’re getting a privileged sneak peek from here on up. Next, climb the stairs and explore floors two through four. Each partner occupies a complete level and rarely wanders from it with the exception of projects that require side-by-side collaboration. Partners are for the most part running their own jobs but communicating constantly via phone, email, and shouting down the steps. Finally, up to the fifth floor, home of the FTP site and the annual Principle Partners Meeting (if you want to get literal). This is the other place where you could find all three partners simultaneously and where the firm stores all of its legal documents, identity materials, marketing and portfolio pieces. All three partners share each other’s resources and have unified their legal and client communications under one brand — including identity, client contracts, tone of communications, etc.

Our point with this little metaphor is that we’ve found running a virtual firm isn’t that much different from running any other studio. Having a common vision for how you want to grow and who you are, complete respect and enjoyment for each other’s work and input, dedication to good business practices — these are basic ingredients for any lasting partnership. What kicks into play extra hard with the virtual firm is trust that everyone is doing what they’ve signed up to do. But if you’ve got that going for you and everyone is self-motivated, this is a structure that allows each partner to stay completely focused in their environment. For those who like to crank the work out, it’s amazing how much you can get done here. No blocking out loud phone conversations or secretly hating the music your neighbor has been blaring for the last hour. It allows each Partner to work at their own pace, choosing when they’re ready to get input from the other Partners. Since we’ve started working together we’ve been quick to recognize that each partner brings their own unique talents. Being able to lean on each other for advice as well as divide the day-to-day operations makes all of our work that much stronger.

So back to the metaphor. When we’re ready to share ideas, this is where we feel our virtual-osity the most. In truth though, it’s rare that we feel alone. Because we’re touching base through email and quick phone calls so often, we almost forget that it’s really just us alone in our individual offices. In our heads, each email is a voice calling to you from up the stairs. Weekly production meetings are the three of us sitting around our big conference table. Phone calls are impromptu discussions at a light table or in the hallway. Communication happens so fast but at the same time, there isn’t room for superfluous conversations. Ultimately it’s is a crash course in being concise and also serves as great daily record. Because we’re in such close contact, we also share the luxury of being able to step into each other’s projects at a moment’s notice if need be. The only time we find ourselves dying for a real physical conference room is when we’re itching to share a concept or have something to celebrate. But because our time together is so limited, when we do find ourselves in the same city for a night, it’s like a highly concentrated version of the best party you’ve ever been to. We live for that.

Where are the problems with this structure? Internally, we have yet to find major or fatal obstacles other than the aforementioned longing for group hugs. Certainly there are times when sharing an office would save on FedEx costs and sometimes shouting down the steps would be easier than sending another email. There’s also the unique project that every so often requires intense group collaboration so we end up flying out to share an office for the week. And every now and then it would be nice to have a client come meet at our studio for a change. There are definitely days when we feel these things, but it’s a long way from driving us to pick up and move. Maybe years from now we’ll find that’s the next big step, but for a start up firm, structuring ourselves as a virtual studio is giving us freedom we couldn’t find anywhere else. More importantly it’s keeping our overhead costs at a minimum.

Externally, we do bump into the occasional client who isn’t comfortable working through email, phone conferencing and online presentations. Typically these are small, young companies who really want someone in their own backyard making frequent office visits. That’s a potential issue facing any firm doing national work. Sometimes we can use our diverse locations to our advantage by pulling research and inspiration from all over the continent. Other times we make it as invisible as possible and just get down to business. But again, as with any agency, our biggest clients who provide us with the best work have never questioned our structure because we make it a non-issue. These companies are used to working with agencies all over the country and they’re probably the best type of client for the virtual firm. Get the work done, make them look like superstars, they don’t care if you design it in the bathtub as long as the end result is fabulous, smart and on budget.

As for where this is leading all of us years from now? Hopefully pressing the utility companies to provide T11 lines for the masses and cheaper airfare. But for today, working in a virtual structure has given the three of us a much broader sense of the world via the sheer amount of resources and inspiration we share. Working together yet from afar has astounded us in how much faster we find ourselves learning and growing our own skills and knowledge. Probably the single greatest benefit of the virtual studio is having some room to breathe. When it comes to running a partnership, simply getting along and maintaining the spark is a huge step for survival. Our separation keeps things fresh and appreciative of what we have together. Nothing reminds us of that fact more than the moment the DSL shuts down, our imaginary Mies van der Rohe building disappears, the friendly background conversations stop and we’re jolted back into a very quiet, very isolated office for one. Thank God for those techies at the US Defense Department.

Principle, Inc. is a U.S.-based graphic communications corporation with offices in Cleveland, Baltimore and Quebec. Founded by three uniquely talented principals-turned-partners sharing the same values and collective standards for good business and great design, their capabilities include development of brand and communications strategies, marketing collateral, package design, advertising, catalogs, and publications. Visit them online at www.designbyprinciple.com or contact them at info [at] designbyprinciple [dot] com.

Maintained through our ADV @ UnderConsideration Program
ENTRY DETAILS
ARCHIVE ID 2325 FILED UNDER Business
PUBLISHED ON Jun.02.2005 BY Speak Up
WITH COMMENTS
Comments
Theo’s comment is:

This may sound obnoxious, but... for a company that exists in the ether and relies on the internet for your daily functioning, its a little odd that your website is essentially devoid of content, and that your portfolio etc only exist as downloadable PDFs. Perhaps it just strikes me as odd because I'm a web designer so I have an inherent bias... ;)

On Jun.02.2005 at 11:16 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

Don't you mean you have a virtual office? You seem to be a real firm.

On Jun.02.2005 at 11:30 AM
Maya Drozdz’s comment is:

Thanks for the advertorial.

On Jun.02.2005 at 12:05 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

Can you talk about how your business works? How is your structure functionally better than having three separate one-person firms (other than making your awards list longer)?

On Jun.02.2005 at 12:55 PM
r agrayspace’s comment is:

Tough crowd.

I was wondering the same thing. How is this better than three separate firms?

Also I was very annoyed by the PDF's and the fact the Portfolio and Story downloaded the same PDF.

On Jun.02.2005 at 01:08 PM
Tan’s comment is:

>How is this better than three separate firms?

Because it gives them a better story to tell...and affords them these "freedoms" that they mention 4-5 times in the thread.

Hey, I say whatever works for you — go for it. But I've been in a business partnership before — and no matter how you spin the paradigm — a virtual partnership is nothing like a real, face-to-face partnership. That's like saying a virtual marriage is no different than the real thing. Yeah, whatever.

On Jun.02.2005 at 01:25 PM
Jim Bucket’s comment is:

i like the .pdf better than clicking next arrows. but this isnt about that... i think its great that you can work from anywhere together... especially if you can maintain great friendships. more power to you...

On Jun.02.2005 at 01:33 PM
marc’s comment is:

Thanks for the advertorial.

yeah no shit - since when did speak up turn into trite, poorly written essays by portfolio center students and masturbatory self congratulating essays about "forward" looking design firms.

lets get back to the real content.

On Jun.02.2005 at 01:45 PM
gregor’s comment is:

given that Principle, Inc. is working in printed media with an international client base, I think the PDF portfolio is appropriate.

More than prose about virtual offices, I'm curious about the transition from individual practitioners to a three partner firm. Gunnar already asked the most pressing: what's the benefit? Subset questions I'm curious about would include:

*Prior to creating Principle Inc., what was the status of the partners: Sole Proprietors & Principals of their own studio, freelancers, or freelancers who then decided to become a sole proprietor prior to joining Principle.

*If the latter (freelancers who decided to become a sole proprietor), what was involved in terms of both mental shifts and organizational structure in making that transition, and then the transition to a partnership.

*What is the past and current structure of the individual partner's office: one person, employees, interns, contractors - as well as office locations (dedicated home studio or other)?

*How are projects and subsequently profits divided up, and if projects are shared what is the decision making process on who works on what as well as how you deal with situations where one partner is brining in the clients but others are not?

*How do you compensate for and deal with expenses that a single three person office would typically need one item for (i.e. printers, swatch books, presentation portfolios, etc., as well as how does you accountant juggle the different expenses in a manner that reports back to the group, creating checks and balances to compenstae for geographical differences)

I ask these as I believe the changes in the industry will witness more and more people moving into smaller practices - ranging from sole proprietors to collectives, to partnerships. I've fairly recently faced these questions and more, coming out with a different org structure.

On Jun.02.2005 at 01:48 PM
Theo’s comment is:

gregor’s comment is:

given that Principle, Inc. is working in printed media with an international client base, I think the PDF portfolio is appropriate.

As an optional download, sure. But as the only way you can see the portfolio? Granted, judging from the portfolio and the client list, they're clearly not hurting for clients and their work is impressive. That being said, it still strikes me as somewhat odd that a company that on the one hand professes to embrace the internet to an extreme degree, doesnt extend that embrace to their online presence. It would seem natural, after all.

On Jun.02.2005 at 02:07 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Put the gloves down ladies. Okay, you can keep them up, whatever, it's a free blog. This is not the first time things have been misinterpreted or misread or misperceived or miss congeniality two (out in theaters soon). So let's look at this in another way, and why I think this trite essay is beneficial.

So, we can all agree that many of us here (okay, us, no, many of you here) work on your own, right? Maybe as freelancers, maybe as principals of one-man operations. So, right there, there is a good reason to post this as it is somewhat of interest.

Second, virtual offices while not a rarity, are situations that some designers would not consider because, as Tan said, a virtual relationship is not the same as a real relationship. Then, there are quite a few virtual offices doing rather well these days — COMA, Omnivore, even Tomato come to mind. So, here is a team of three talented women setting up a virtual office for reasons set forth in their essay. Now, I'm pretty certain there is at least one designer sitting in his home office right now iChatting with a buddy of his on how cool it would be to set up a firm together and have creative freedom and do all the wonderful things that while working under the man are not possible. And, perhaps, that one designer just forwarded this essay to his buddy. So, I'll take an advertorial any day of the week if it can help someone get off their ass and do something proactive.

At worst, you just wasted, say, ten minutes reading their contribution, going on their site, downloading their PDF, seeing some nice designs and complaining about it. No sweat. Tomorrow we will have another post.

Plus… I doubt anyone here is going to hire Principle for their design needs. So I really don't see this is as advertising.

On Jun.02.2005 at 02:13 PM
gregor’s comment is:

a pdf will provide a more image and color accurate "book" for the client who needs a quick at their portfolio.

I believe they give homage to networking, which relies on the http protocol in their case, but other than that should they care about the internet?

On Jun.02.2005 at 02:20 PM
Pamela’s comment is:

Yes, prior to creating Principle, we were Sole Proprietors & Principals of our own studio (hence the name).

We’re now a joint venture....

For two years I was running my own studio. My client projects got too big for a solo shop and I needed to grow. I grew with people I thought were talented and smart...they just didn’t live in my city (tough to be English speaking and grow in a predominantly French area). I also wanted to work with partners on a consistent basis rather than pick-up freelancers on a project by project basis.

To continue, three women can get a lot done. Being responsible for every task that one does on a daily basis— marketing, brainstorming, designing, accounting— requires an immense work day. Divide and conquer and suddenly 3 makes a lot more sense.

As far as how projects are run, it depends on the client. We team up on the larger projects but we handle the smaller ones separately. Profit decisions are made by the lead (usually one of us has a closer relationship with the client or landed the business).

As mentioned, we don’t have a �huge’ online presence. We will....but we rolled out a print campaign first since it’s our core business.

On Jun.02.2005 at 02:25 PM
gregor’s comment is:

Pamela, thanks for replying. The reason I ask the questions, and as Armin also indicates, there's a lot of folks at various stages in their career who are contemplating forming virtual offices, partnerships, or just striking out on their own as sole props. Doing so takes a good deal of effort that involves a lot more than sending out a direct mail piece and putting up a website, as well as making huge mental shifts in their approach to their work.

Business plan, org type & structure and licenses, are just the tip of the iceberg: many folks who would like to do what you are doing benefit greatly by articles such as yours in their goal to break out on their own.

On Jun.02.2005 at 02:46 PM
marian bantjes’s comment is:

Hmmm. I'm really surprised by the dismissive attitude toward this article. I didn't find it poorly written or overly self-promotional. It was about themselves, but I read it as exposing a working model that most of us are not familiar with, and many are obviously skeptical of.

Of course it's of interest to me because I live on a goddamned island. I personally would love to be in a situation like the one described here. Meeting the right people is the hard part, and they're right, it is extremely rare to find those people who just fit. That, i would say, is the part that can't be done over the internet.

I've never met the right people ... or, actually, I have; they're just busy doing more important things.

I was one of the early "telecommuters" (more trips down memory lane here), in that back in 1989 I left the city of Vancouver to move to Saskatoon (big mistake, long story), but I took my job with me, and continued to work via modem, fax and courier for 3 years. So I know it can work.

I think there are huge advantages to working like this, many of which are outlined in the article. The "freedoms" are real.

I'm interested in the fact that all 3 are women. Is this significant, either in their decision not to pick up and move to a city together (women tend to stay where their husbands are; men are more likely to make a decision about their career which will uproot the entire family), or in their ability to work both autonomously+together? I wonder.

On Jun.02.2005 at 03:50 PM
Gunnar Swanson’s comment is:

While I don’t think it will be included in anthologies and cited in text books, I wouldn’t have called the post trite. It certainly is no more trite than some of my contributions to Speak Up. I asked about the business relationship because I’m interested in how business relationships work. Do tell us more.

On Jun.02.2005 at 04:03 PM
Christopher Risdon’s comment is:

I have no problem with this post and agree it's weird how dismissive people were right off the bat. I think it is useful to hear how others work in large firms, one person shopts, virtual firms, etc. I think this is insight that Speak Up can and has offered.

My only issue with the essay is I would've liked to have heard more about the practial side - as has been addressed now by Pamela in her comments - about how it formed, what was the motivation, what is the actual structure like, how business is done, etc.

Virtual Agencies were the buzz word in advertising in the early nineties. Mostly because of the live-large 80s followed by the early 90s recession, many companies were questioning the overhead of their large advertising agencies, and some were trying 'virtual agencies' which usually was a shingle put up by an account type or two who would bring in their creatives or media buyers, etc. from a network of freelancers. No overhead, office space, etc, so the idea was you were just paying for what you needed - the work.

But it nevery really took off in any significant way, though there are some I know who have successfuly worked by this model.

That's a bit different than Priciple which is a specific collaboration of partners, but just in different locations. I don't know if it's as 'virtual' as the term used when it was originally coined (where there really was no agency that existed, just a roladex under a moniker, essentially) - since they seem like a real firm, but the point comes accross that you're not going to see all three designers in the same city in some hipster office.

Underware seems to be doing this successfully for type projects.

On Jun.02.2005 at 04:11 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

I live on a goddamned island

People given the opportunity to live on an island should never preface it with 'goddamned'. ;o)

On Jun.02.2005 at 04:21 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:

Credit where credit is due, Principle's work is impressive. But I can't see, beyond the legal & fiscal formalities, how this "firm" is any different than three individual freelancers who, at times, collaborate on projects.

And this becomes even more apparent when it is noted at the bottom of the "firm's" self promotion piece "While each Principal was responsible for the design and creative direction of the enclosed portfolio projects, a small number of them were completed under the employ of separate design firms"

On Jun.02.2005 at 04:50 PM
JonSel’s comment is:

how this "firm" is any different than three individual freelancers who, at times, collaborate on projects.

I suppose you could say the same for any multi-office firm, couldn't you? How are the San Francisco and New York offices of Landor related, since they share no common staff (aside from corporate-level) ? The bond between the 3 is a common set of ideals, work processes, and business needs. Whether they are in the same office or not doesn't deny them the status as a collaborative firm.

The larger, broader portfolio is the greatest benefit, in my opinion. Individually, the portfolios are nice, but perhaps missing certain project or industry credentials. Now, they can pool the resources, bring in each other to complement their own skills, and offer the value of increased knowledge. Sounds like a great idea.

As for the credit at the end of the promo piece, that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has left a studio and gone out on their own. The portfolio has to come from somewhere, but legally, the work has to be represented correctly. I'm quite clear about what work in my book is from my employment at Landor and what is the product of my business. Beyond legal issues, it's simply the right thing to do.

On Jun.02.2005 at 05:58 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:

As for the credit at the end of the promo piece, that shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has left a studio and gone out on their own.

But these individuals have not left a studio and gone out on their own...they have left a studio and formed another. They are using the pieces that have been produced by other firms to promote their own. The work represented in these pieces may have been produced in majority by these designers, but in a different studio under different direction, sets of collegues, vision and culture.

True, it may not be unethical or unlawful because of their "credits". But as any seasoned designer knows, their potential clients are hardly looking at this tiny type and footnote when reviewing the work.

At the very least, it's a misrepresentation of the work that the "firm" has produced for past clients.

On Jun.02.2005 at 06:19 PM
Ally’s comment is:

But these individuals have not left a studio and gone out on their own...they have left a studio and formed another.

Just to clarify -- we each worked at different studios for a number of years, then formed our OWN sole proprietorships before starting this joint venture. The majority of work represented in our portfolio was created while we were still operating our individual companies.

On Jun.02.2005 at 07:39 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:

The majority of work represented in our portfolio was created while we were still operating our individual companies.

I see that. For example, you credit Rutka Weadock Design for the MICA Viewbook where you are not credited for being the sole proprietor or even creative director as noted here:

www.aiga.org/content.cfm?contentalias=365_adv_detail_2003&csi=512

Or the Aurora Picture Show logo, which appears at both

www.auedesignstudio.com and

www.ethereality.org/portfolio7.html

to neither of which credit is given.

On Jun.02.2005 at 08:57 PM
Christopher Risdon’s comment is:

I'm not sure where the problem is here. I've seen small firms that are starting out (virtual or not) use their previous work from when they were "in the employ" of other firms to demonstrate their capabilities as designers, in lieue of having enough history of their own to have their own extensive portfolio. It's definitely not uncommon.

I didn't check out everything you did, jennifer, but that MICA viewbook seems normal. If Alley was the credited designer, and she goes and starts her own firm, it would be perfectly normal to have that in the 'firm's' portfolio as a capability of the designers (when we're talking about firms that are a small collection of designers - if a large design studio started coopting their designers previous work, that would be a different story).

The area I do agree with is the use of the term 'creative direction' in their disclosure, if they were not the creative director. But I think that's a small issue. But besides this issue, it is a pretty common practice to carry over your work like they have, and, respectfully, I'm not sure why it's worth persecuting.

But I could be wrong - maybe worth it's own topic.

On Jun.02.2005 at 09:23 PM
JonSel’s comment is:

if a large design studio started coopting their designers previous work, that would be a different story

I agree with this. There's no misrepresentation happening with Principle. The work they show as their portfolio is work they directly did. And, they are the people who will be designing any newly commissioned work.

Jennifer, what would you have them show as their portfolio if they can't show their previous work (whether under employ or not) ? It's something every new design firm has to go through —�the partners assemble a portfolio of work they've done under the aegis of another studio. For awhile, until they build up enough credentials under the new studio, this is how they get work. I can see the pitch meeting: "Um, we can't show any work, but we've done it, for years even. So hire us, because we're good. Of course, you'll just have to take our word for it. Can you pay cash?"

On Jun.02.2005 at 10:11 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:

Jennifer, what would you have them show as their portfolio if they can't show their previous work (whether under employ or not) ? It's something every new design firm has to go through

I can see the pitch meeting: "Um, we can't show any work, but we've done it, for years even. So hire us, because we're good. Of course, you'll just have to take our word for it. Can you pay cash?"

I guess this demonstrates the value of the first (or any) client that a design firm retains. It also demonstrates the injustice Principle is doing by showcasing work produced by another studio, whether they were employed by that firm at some point or not.

As both designer and client of design firms, I believe that the actual work a firm produces is an important. But rarely the deciding factor in gaining a client. In fact, I believe the most replacable component of the design firm is the designer. There are so many other more important factors in which the firm is sold: years of experience, vast resources, excellent creative direction, copywriting, etc. When principle puts their logo in a marketing piece showcasing a piece of design work as their own, they are implying they provided all the above services and more.

This is exemplyfied with the MICA piece, where (on the AIGA site) Ally is credited only as designer and numerous others are named as contributers...including creative direction.

No where in the Principle piece are these people credited. Only an incorrectly used, legally meaningless copyright symbol noting the name of another firm in barely-legible type.

Principle should make it clear in their promotional piece that some of the pieces presented were produced while partners were employed at other design firms, and that a majority of the services represented in the portfolio were not provided by the partner and that partner was not solely responsible for the success of the piece.

And this is why I choose to use the word "misleading". Is what Principle doing legal? Proabably. Ethical? I suppose so. Misleading? When I put myself in a potential client of Principle's shoes...absolutely. I highly doubt if that tiny copy will be read...or even understood.

And again- where is the credit for the Aurora Picture Show logo?

On Jun.03.2005 at 01:55 AM
JonSel’s comment is:

What if we take the flipside to this argument? How different is this from a design firm showcasing work that was done by former employees? Consider that everyone who contributed to the project�—�designers, writers, production staff, even the strategy team and managing partner —�has moved on to other agencies. Couldn't this be misleading?

I guess we are just going to disagree on this, Jennifer. I doubt the three partners are representing the project as entirely of their own creation. In my portfolio, I don't credit every person who worked on projects with me, but I never tell a client that nobody ever helped me with something.

To include every minute detail about a project's provenance would be distracting and, frankly, irrelevant. When a client decides to hire a studio, they do so with a certain amount of faith and trust that the result will be to their liking and consistent with past work. If Principle are truly misleading their clients and not delivering upon the promise of past work, then they will eventually go out of business.

On Jun.03.2005 at 09:44 AM
Darrel’s comment is:

But these individuals have not left a studio and gone out on their own...they have left a studio and formed another. They are using the pieces that have been produced by other firms to promote their own. The work represented in these pieces may have been produced in majority by these designers, but in a different studio under different direction, sets of collegues, vision and culture.

Yep. Welcome to the business of graphic design.

On Jun.03.2005 at 10:28 AM
Emevas’s comment is:

I just met with two friends over the weekend about setting up a virtual web and graphics firm. The tech guy in DC, me (graphics) and our business savy Wharton guy in Philly. It seemed like a good idea. We clinked our glasses together and said 'why not?' But after all of this, I'm not so sure anymore.

On Jun.03.2005 at 10:39 AM
kelly’s comment is:

Or the Aurora Picture Show logo, which appears at both

www.auedesignstudio.com and

www.ethereality.org/portfolio7.html

to neither of which credit is given.

I designed that logo, that's why it is on my site. (ethereality.org) It was created while working at Aue Design Studio and credit is given on my site that I was working there at that time.

What we select to show in our portfolio as "our work" is definitely a grey area of our field for some. Personally, if I can't say with conviction, certainty and honesty that I was a majority player in a piece, it does not go in my book. Sure we often work in teams in the creative environment, but just because it was done in the same studio, doesn't make it the work of every person employed there. The projects that happened in the studio environment while employed at a firm can be very valuable in discussing your experience with that type of project, even if you were not a majority participant, but are those projects a good choice for promotional materials once you have moved on? Its a code of ethics that each designer must decide for the themselves. The AIGA provides great guidance for this topic and there are countless books, blogs and essays on it as well, but ultimately and somewhat unfortunately, the decision is personal. And I agree with the closing comment of JonSel ...

If Principle are truly misleading their clients and not delivering upon the promise of past work, then they will eventually go out of business.

On Jun.03.2005 at 10:53 AM
Steve Mock’s comment is:

Way off topic.

The three of us spun off from the mother ship last year. We were the little boutique team - or tax shelter, I'm not sure - of a larger agency.

We are absolutely forbidden - under threat of litigation - from using anything we made while with our former host (though they were totally silent in most matters creative.) They own it. Flat out. Whatever.

We don't need the hassle, and they have much deeper pockets than we do.

Moving on. Make more. Make more.

On Jun.03.2005 at 11:02 AM
Jennifer’s comment is:

In my portfolio, I don't credit every person who worked on projects with me, but I never tell a client that nobody ever helped me with something.

But Jon, you are not representing yourself as a "firm", implying the benefits and capabilities that come with that title. And on your website you are forthcoming with the fact that your experience and work is from Landor:

Prior to forming Selikoff Design, he spent five years at Landor Associates in New York

Principle does not note in such detail that a good majority of their work was product of past employment with other firms. And in one case, there is no credit to another designer and firm which may be responsible for that piece.

And I only did a few minutes of digging on the web to find these examples.

What if we take the flipside to this argument? How different is this from a design firm showcasing work that was done by former employees?

As I explained in a previous post, I don't believe a firm is hired based on the designers. A firm is hired on the creative direction and resources available to that firm. It is the firm's responsibility to hire and retain a talented & competent staff in which their client develops trust. In turn, this trust and client base is where the firm develops reputation and gains new clients. When a firm claims the work of another solely as their own, they are claiming that they have achieved that reputation themselves.

I suppose when we are designers at a firm, we accept that our work will be showcased after we have left the firm. And we accept this when we take home a paycheck at the end of the week.

On Jun.03.2005 at 11:04 AM
Jennifer’s comment is:

Jennifer, I was part owner of Aue Design during my four years there as Creative Director. Aurora Picture Show was my client that I brought to them so we could work on it in house together as a team. Kelly (Hi K!) was one of the studio's designers and yes, she designed this piece under my art direction and of course I would fully expect it to be on her site just like we use it on ours. I'm pretty sure none of our successes has come from the fact that MICA or the Aurora logo have been included in the PDF on our website. My maiden name is Aue darlin', does that clear things up a bit?

On Jun.03.2005 at 11:16 AM
Jennifer’s comment is:

I'm pretty sure none of our successes has come from the fact that MICA or the Aurora logo have been included in the PDF on our website. My maiden name is Aue darlin', does that clear things up a bit?

Not for your clients. They are seeing the work from a previous employer. At least Kelly is forthcoming in giving credit to the firm she designed the logo under.

By not crediting the aue studio (part owner or not), you are denying credit to the individuals that took part in creating that logo at aue design. According to Kelly, she played a major role here.

And if the logo or the Mica piece can't be attributed to your success, why feature it in the promotion at all? Why risk losing credibility?

On Jun.03.2005 at 11:49 AM
Principle’s comment is:

To address some of �the questions from yesterday about how we’re different from three freelancers who occasionally work together:

First off, when pursuing new clients, there’s a level of trust on their part that comes with hiring a company rather than a freelance designer. Often times we found while working solo (which we all did prior to forming Principle) that companies would be concerned if we can handle a heavy workload and tight deadlines. If you get sick, hit by a bus, whatever — you’re basically shut down and they’re out of luck. Presenting and operating as a firm brings a level of confidence to them that you can handle the project. And in the event that one of us does have to step out at a moments notice, being in constant contact (rather than functioning job to job) allows us to easily hand off any project and be confident that it will be finished by a trusted partner.

Secondly, in many ways, we think of ourselves as any other design office. Legally, visually, contractually — we’ve gone about setting our structure up just as any new partnership would. We’ve devoted a large amount of time to researching other models and using legal counsel to help us compose an agreement that works for us. We agree that finding the right people to invite into a partnership isn’t something that can be done online but don’t forget, we spent years working side by side prior to this and that gave us the same vocabulary and expectations right off the bat.

Another significant difference, freelancers aren’t bound to one another in image or reputation whereas we’re all three equally involved and responsible for every piece of work and every relationship that we collectively or independently establish. For example, even if only one of us is involved with a client, if that job runs poorly it reflects badly on all of us— you really have to pull your own weight around here.

On us all three being women — sheer coincidence but it does make us a little closer. And if we stay in our cities because we’re married? The short answer to that would be no, there are lots of reasons we all are where we are. No matter where we move in years to come (one move is actually on the horizon), Principle will still work. That’s truly what we hoped this article would bring to Speak Up’s readers, an open conversation for what others in similar situations have found so we can all learn and maybe not have to reinvent the wheel with every new step.

On Jun.03.2005 at 11:56 AM
Armin’s comment is:

JKrakora, okay, your points have been heard. Now, if you were the law, what would you make Principle say in their PDF portfolio? It's not a rhetorical question, what disclaimer should they have in at least 9pt type?

Then, say they include it, because it's the law and they must conform with it. Do you believe that potential clients will make a decision based on one or two pieces that acknowledges collaboration with past designers and employers? Potential clients may be reeled in with nice shots of projects but what they are really hiring Principle for — or any other firm or freelancer — is because of the way they present themselves, their references, their pricing, the presentation of their process, their ability to respond to an RFP, the attentiveness with which they deal with potential clients and a slew of other, tangential non-portfolio related attributes. Unless the women of Principle simply got the coffee for their former boss and then claimed ownership of a piece this discussion seems misguided. And as JonSel said, very correctly, if Principle can't back up what they show with future work clients will notice. And, just going from the PDF, it is quite apparent that they can deliver. Credits or not.

On Jun.03.2005 at 12:20 PM
the pessimist’s comment is:

I think it is comendable and downright awesome what Principle has done. It's inspiring as an entry level designer to hear the stories of success with a little real life mixed in. These ladies have worked their asses off and all I hear are mixed levels of venomous dissension and mockery from some of the folks on here... it's sad...

In the famous words of a guy I once knew, "Don't playa hate, congratulate!"

I agree Armin, what a bunch of pompous son's of bitches! laugh, i'm joking

On Jun.03.2005 at 01:26 PM
::: Tom :::’s comment is:

Jennifer, I think it is safe to say that you are being a bitch right now.

I don't really feel strongly about this subject... but you have put me in a bad mood just from reading the tone of your posts.

On Jun.03.2005 at 01:30 PM
Rob’s comment is:

Since I know one of the principles of Principal, I'll just agree with what Armin has just said. These designers aren't going to be hired off a sample or two from their web site. If they were, than design is nothing more than a pretty brochure to that client, and I doubt they'd want a client like that.

They are, on the other hand, going to be hired because of how they manage the process of design and the value that bring to their relationship with their clients. And that's not really something a client can realize from looking at a PDF. Jennifer, you are very welcome to your opinion, but in this case I think it is more picking on something that really isn't an issue at all. And consider, like in the case of the MICA book, that Ally probably did the majority of the work and the design, but just for the pure politics of the studio, Tony was listed as Creative Director because that's his title. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened, knowing Tony, but it certainly happens often enough within the industry that I have no objections with how they are displaying their current samples.

And to the three brave, I consider anyone who goes out on their own to be brave, women who wer kind of enough to share their vision with us, and how it works for them, thank you. As someone who worked virtually for almost three years with my marketing department in NY, I know the ups and downs of the relationship. And if you can make it work as a firm, then you will all be able to grow together and gain the rewards from your efforts. (Oh gee, is that advertorial or just sappy?) Anyhow, best of luck.

On Jun.03.2005 at 02:32 PM
Armin’s comment is:

Just sappy.

On Jun.03.2005 at 02:38 PM
Emevas’s comment is:

What's better than roses on a piano?

Tulips on my organ!

Thank you, thank you....I'll be here all week.

On Jun.03.2005 at 02:39 PM
Darrel’s comment is:

We are absolutely forbidden - under threat of litigation - from using anything we made while with our former host (though they were totally silent in most matters creative.) They own it. Flat out. Whatever.

And these are rarely enforceable in court. No employer can forcibly restrict your ability to work in the industry you are in.

On Jun.03.2005 at 03:21 PM
Jennifer’s comment is:

JKrakora, okay, your points have been heard. Now, if you were the law, what would you make Principle say in their PDF portfolio?

Maybe Principle should have saved these types of examples for a more appropriate forum to present the work. Maybe during a face-to-face presentation when the situation these pieces were created under could be more accurately explained?

I read these forums often, and it seems to be a common theme that designers are looking for their profession to be more "legitimate" and respected. I am in a unique position where I am responsible for both producing design work and the coordination of freelancers, design firms and ad agencies. I often see design firms sell their services to my company on (along with numerous other points) past experience, then are later unable to deliver on the scope of work involved in the project. After a little digging, you see that these firms weren't as responsible for the work in their portfolio as they lead you to believe.

Nothing will make a profession appear more illegitimate or less respected in the eyes of a CFO or CMO than the scenario I described above.

Please note that I'm not saying this is the case with Principle. I am not familiar with their firm beyond what I have read in this website & on in their promotional piece. I did, however, respond to Ally's post where she claims the work presented in the piece was either product of their creative direction or a sole proprietorship. I pointed out two cases where this isn't completely true.

Sorry if I was a drag on this post. I wish nothing but the best of luck to principle, or any design firm, agency or freelancer. My comments were meant to be analytical of the business ethics of design firms in general- not to put the partners of principle inc. on trial.

It's the weekend. Time to cocktail.

On Jun.03.2005 at 05:21 PM
Bryony’s comment is:

Going beyond the portfolio legalities and the should’s or should not’s, I am very interested in the business and legal aspects of your partnerships. You mentioned you had counsel when you first started, and I was wondering if you virtual office had to be constituted differently that a regular one city partnership with a real office, desks and chairs. Are there any specific clauses that had to be weaved in into your contract? Is there something in your business proposal (if you have one, not sure) that delineates what would happen if the model were to change?

On Jun.06.2005 at 11:30 AM