Design Friction: How Design can defend?

Design Friction: How Design can defend?

We all like to think that design is smooth and curvy, creative and smart, enjoyable and easy, but we are largely wrong. Design has its own pitfalls and has to undergo many challenges before it is called DESIGNED. In some fields Design has earned its honours by virtue of the necessity. In others it has gained honours by defeating all odds in its process of creation and existence. Design has managed to earn itself a title of polished and sophisticated in many fields. Fashion is one of them. Design also has its impression in engineering and technology. Lamborghini & Apple are some of them. Design in architecture and education have already proven their status. You think of an industry and you will find Design presence. Those who have not yet embraced Design will do so in a short span of time.

But it is not all so easy for Design, Designers or Design People. They have to face a lot of friction before Design becomes what people admire, acknowledge and accommodate. Whether it is Business Design or Consumer Design, Social Design or Institutional Design, at every stage Design has to go through a lot of friction.

In this article I will focus on my area of design (i.e. branding design - packaging) and what that friction is. Do these frictions create “Heat of the Moment” or easily cool down in the process and freeze into the avatar?

Packaging design has often raised eyebrows (if it has to start somewhere). I have met a lot of responsible people who consider packaging design as a tool to make products available at a point where it can be paid for, for all the hard work.  Even in this era there are consumer product marketers who have such a view on packaging design. And if you ever get a chance to work with them you will realize what friction I am referring to.

Many marketers often rely on sales force for Design management issues, packaging design solutions and CHANGE, when the sales team is for selling, availability, coverage and promotions (more technical). Often the views expressed by the front line on matters of design are disaster. They don’t understand what the basis of Design is, why certain colours, fonts, nomenclature, packaging structure etc have been created and more importantly how (inspiration) they have been created. For them the package is a token, on which they get targets & push it to achieve targets. Their remarks sometimes sound like jokes. While I myself do not advise isolation of the key sales people, super senior sales managers from discussions and decision making or eliciting views, but I recommend that it should be taken as an input and not judgement / directive. Decisions on Design are difficult to take and no one likes to be in shooting range (risk averse). Packaging Design is in many parts driven by culture, semiotics, demographics and psychographics which are used to bring out the essence, personality & imagery, which is not an area of concern for the sales team. For them culture is the language in which they interact with the retailer/shopkeeper. And any of the latter is “I don’t need to know”.

While this was easy on identifying the heat of the moment, there are other very practical issues which keep the heat on, more than any other. I have over the years realized some of these and would like to share the same here.

F1       What I want Vs What We want Vs What Customers want – I have come across instances where the team managing the brand is not sure what the objective of the brand design is, half way through the project. While it always starts with what the customer wants, captured as a crisp brief, but gradually it becomes a tussle between two states of mind (The executive and the boss - hierarchy). Many times we have received feedback that is like ‘my boss wants it this way but I think it should be this way. What do you think’? Such kind of feedback is like a poison which kills slowly, slowly. It has the potential to burn down everything that ever started with good spirit and motive. I have seen many Design People face this challenge every now and then. The only way to avoid this is to stick to the brief that was formulated, ask questions before putting pencil to paper, define the parameters of evaluation and devise a holistic feedback process.    

F2       Incomplete or half sure – There are many managers who are ‘Not Sure’ most of the time. If you ask them how they feel, they will say “Not sure”. They make it worse by adding ‘What if...’. Many times it also happens that new things come up in the middle of the design processes which were not part of brief. These so called “New” create a lot of problems & have the potential to destroy the essence of the Design and create more irregularities than imagined. Not being able to make up the mind is a weakness amongst many managers. This can be attributed to personality or behavioural issues. Such people should learn how to plan, organize, execute projects professionally for the benefit of the objective at hand and avoid interim hiccups caused by indecisiveness.         

F3       Constructive Feedback Vs Casual Views – Usually feedback is very critical for any Design in the making. It is important to consider constructive feedback as a catalyst for improvement. But often those who are entrusted with productive feedback get caught between what somebody thinks and what is actually useful for the Design. Not being able to differentiate between the two could be unhealthy. One should know how to filter feedback and channel the information that will be useful and productive in the Design process. Filtering is a tool rather than a task. It is about applying your sense and knowledge in a constructive manner rather than getting carried away by anything and everything that is placed as a comment on Design. 

F4       Sum of parts Vs One stop solution – Gone are the days when brand marketers used to rely on one agency/ service provider for all brand design & communication needs. Today the industry has got fragmented and many specialists have emerged who participate in the making of the whole. Being a knowledge driven business there are instances where the minds are at war, and Design is in the battle ground. Roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined for any Design project to avoid any casualties.

F5       Grammar or language – One of the most vulnerable issues in Design. I have noticed many brand marketers clearly defining their objective / expectation as ‘young, modern and active’. They don’t realize what each of these words could mean in the language of Design Development and how the whole creation process could steer away from the path if these words are not decoded in that specific scenario or situation. It is not only with these three words but a lot is said which can be avoided so that we don’t erode the essence we want to establish and mind space we wish to occupy. Design people are highly sensitive to words/ grammar and any wrong word or word misunderstood could end up creating a complete UFD – Unwanted Favourable Design.  

         

F6       Taking Decisions – A lot of brand marketers become indecisive when it comes to design discussions. There is some kind of fear in saying that ‘we like it’ and ‘let’s go for it’. They often remark the contrary, delaying the process and making more hills out of dust. Design often needs a good reason, a strong inspiration & great interpretation. If these tools are not accompanying design then there is bound to be friction.

F7       Deliberation – A lot of people like to deliberately create confusion. They keep comparing situations, other brands, other non related designs / issues causing clarity to get washed out like a bucket of water. Soapy and slippery, people are bound to tumble. Time is of essence in Design. Your ideas could become dreams if not put into action at the right time. Great ideas become sluggish if they miss the timeline or deadline. Bad ideas have no room for survival however they cause damage more than asked for.    

     

Four Pillars of Emerging Small Family Businesses in India

5 Emerging Trends in Brand Design Management

Populism De-Merits Design Management

A decade ago Brand Design firms were looked up as prestigious associates to business & saviors in times of dwindling consumerism. Clients used to respect the engagements & work produced. With time this perception has changed and there are many reasons I can think of.

Today clients are more interested in knowing how much will be the fees and how many iterations will be non chargeable. While they still look at the credentials and clients credits but somewhere deep inside they are missing the point. It is not about how many clients an agency has for credibility index, how economically they can derive the output without causing big dent in budgets or how fast the project can be turned around.

With the proliferation of brand design firms parallel to main stream advertising (full service agency) firms, the selection and engagement parameters have changed radically.

From my experience I can say that there are three major risks which have emerged in the business partnership of such firms. Brand Owners/ Marketers (Clients) should have a clear understanding of the following:-

                      i.        Avoid Populism – Clients should not get carried away by the names, number of years or the number of clients showcased in the credentials/ pitch. Instead they should be more concerned and interested in what the agency did in a situation like theirs or would do.  What was the role of the agency in mitigating the problem & how did they overcome the planning & execution weaknesses. There is a very thin line between these selection parameters. For e.g. almost all design firms have credentials of doing brand identity for any brand but the question is “Can they do it for them?” Meaning, can the design firm create brand identity for the particular category of product, segment or challenge. Knowing how to do brand identity is not the same as “Creating a brand identity that fulfills the brands desired objective”.

Recently I was asked by a prospective client why do I charge so much for doing a brand identity when the existing one was done so cheap. I just asked one thing, “Did you get it done or they gave it to you?” For a moment he was confused then he realized what I meant.  We later got the project but more importantly my client realized that any design firm can make an identity for him, but will it be what it is meant to be or is it what a creative person can visualize that looks good.

                    ii.        Avoid Speak & Show business – Try to work with brand design firms who produce more tangible and realistic results / solutions. Don’t get caught up in jargon, don’t get overwhelmed with history, and don’t get blind in glamour. Engage with firms who listen & do. There are many firms who take senior rank / good speakers for important meetings just to put weight age on the work being presented. They are more likely to sell than be caught up in point of view. But beware. Clients should entertain firms who don’t have a song and dance show to make the point. They should rely on those firms who value your time and facilitate you to make important decisions in the meeting.

Recently I was attending a Strategic Brand Review Meeting with board of directors of one of our client. An activation agency was presenting their credentials and possibly trying to convince why they were so good. All through the one hour presentation they kept on singing the songs they knew (self proclaimed recognition coupled with what they did). Nobody was talking of creating a new tune (how to handle the new situation of a new client). It appeared as if they were good at remix and that’s what they were trying to portray.

                   iii.        Avoid who promise the moon – Many firms in order to clinch the deal go to extents you cannot imagine. At least I can’t imagine. They can show you the moon and will show you, but not tell you how to reach there. They will craft everything so well that every piece will appear perfect. But on closer look (when the execution begins) you will realize how superficial were the claims & how impossible it will be to get to the moon. Clients should engage with firms who have the courage to take responsibility. Courage does not need powerful point presentations. You can sense it, smell it or see it when the doer comes in front of you.

Recently I was reviewing some retail visibility solutions that were presented by a retail design solutions firm. On being asked how do they think these solutions would work for the client, the presenter shook away the onus saying that it has been done by many people in the past and hence assuming that it would work again. He insisted that we try and see rather than committing his responsibility by saying that if it didn’t work they would go back and work again. Responsibility I am talking of comes with big thinking.

How to make Design Penetrable – Go deep for the depth.

How to make Design Penetrable – Go deep for the depth.

Recently I heard someone saying “Depth can be enjoyed best when you go deep where nobody else has gone

before. Also depth should be measured by how near you are to the bed of sand and not by how far you are from the water line”. 

Since then this thought has started gaining more and more penetration in my mind over a time. I believe it is

wisely said for one aspect of brand business according to me. And that is client and brand design agency

partnership.

I have read and heard many brand design briefs in my career. A client basically captures in the brief Ψ what they

want for their brand Ψ based on some deep pocket research Ψ and how they wish to see the change disrupt the

market with their strategy. They want the agency to come up with a creative idea & execute it to demonstrate the

objectives being met. Very instantly and diligently the agency undergoes a creative process and generates an out

of  the boat idea and decorates it glamorously. But seldom does the agency realize that delivering upon the brief is

not the challenge in the game.

Delivering design solutions for smiling faces in the board room, appeasing someone’s weakness by making an

element inclusive in the design frame, or going by the T and being good in the process are not the ways

responsibility should be handled by brand design firms. Good looking design is not difficult today. The more critical

aspect of the challenge is Design working for the favorable intent – market share, category leadership, trade pull

and customer delight (with good looks). You can’t achieve true and meaningful growth just by looking good. You

have to be good before good looks. And good gets spoilt or misdirected by unwarranted inputs & choices. For

instance there are many clients who almost dictate what they want in their brand design leaving no room for

Trends, Innovation & Creativity; there are some who show preferences of certain elements and make it almost

mandatory to be used in the design despite it having no reason at all for being there; some even specify

what they want indicating like whom (benchmark) they want to be and why; and some have no idea what to become

in spite of a well written brief.

Design is a bigger responsibility for those who create than those who live with it. Brand Design should be

approached without any sprints. Design is also not like fishing, Design is an ecosystem. In its ecosystem there are

many varieties of water species and water bodies.

Clients must ask their brand design agency what they didn’t consider before making the recommendations. They

must ask what have they found that would make the difference beyond the brief (knowledge they have). The agency

should upfront highlight what they feel is risky yet profitable rather than story telling about how it happened.   

The brand design service industry in India is growing really fast & many new firms are forming up every year.

Everybody is doing their good looks. But clients must depend and give responsibility to those who go deeper than

the brief and closer to the depths. Clients must trust those agencies who can not only deliver good looking design

but also provide reasons, insights & beliefs. 

Honeybee Design - Changing the way we do Business of Brands

Design nurtures gender equivalence

Can Design make offensive things acceptable?

As a branding and design practitioner for consumer brands, I have had the privilege to work on over 500 brands in the last one decade. My involvement or participation has mostly been in the packaging design solutions for such brands. 

By the way, this article is not about my record or experience. It is about how some projects cause discomfort when dealing with the brand design objective, noticed especially within my team of project managers, creative & strategists.

There are many categories or consumer products which are difficult to handle in brand design because of the enormity of the size of the market for such products. Difficulty also arises when there are more generics and unbranded than the branded counterparts, and information on such SKU’s (former) is difficult to gather and analyze. India has vast small scale sector manufacturing consumer products which we all use knowingly or unknowingly and some of these companies have far more loyal customers than their superior branded counterparts.

Such discomfort is a macro issue and not my subject in this piece.

Another problem is the import of cheaper foreign made (substitutes) consumer products. They add to the grief because they sell phenomenally well without much or any marketing or branding design thought. They are successful in distribution and make availability (SCM strategy) almost look like a joke. You may not get branded products (advertised products) as readily as these products which are often available as replacements for your regular purchase products.

Such discomfort is still manageable for popular brands with Innovation & Design thinking.

Having set the background let’s see which micro issues and products can cause greater discomfort as a brand design practitioner (in places where position is that of a non user). There have been more than three occasions, in which I was involved, when we were briefed on brand design solutions requirement for sanitary pads. In India it is considered as a dark category (only to speak) because advertising is all over the place for sanitary napkins. But I feel for sure that it is a category where men generally lack both basic & critical knowledge (unless you are a brand manager or marketing manager or production manager at the R&D facility or the likes). As a brand design solutions provider there were couple of unavoidable problems which I noticed on my face.

1. ·        First of all was the presentation of information for briefing or discussion purposes as a non user to the design team which included actual consumers of the product. While sharing information was a piece of the problem, the other bigger problem was sharing insights, making inferences and devising strategy,
2. ·        Second was the demonstration of the new product and its key benefits (NPD) as  non user & detailing the USP and differentiation as provided in the brief to a set of consumers,
3. ·       Third was reviewing the design and the supporting logic of the designer who was a user.

Once the project was over I realized that the problems in our head were typical to some product categories. However, during the course of the project I did not find any designer (user or non user) being embarrassed or uncomfortable being present in the meeting room for briefing, discussions, development and reviews. I had my fears of course but they were all vanquished once we set the ball rolling and kept a single point focus – DESIGN Management.

I think the credit goes to DESIGN MANAGEMENT THINKING rather than individual notions, stance or linkages, approach or attempt. During the entire project we were always thinking of ‘what difference are we going to bring about in the lives of the millions of customers and how they are going to benefit from what we did for them’. Everybody had put on the attitude of doing it for someone, and ignoring their own dilemmas.   

Recently we were commissioned a project on brand design for a male contraceptive (condoms) brand. Having felt the discomfort in my team on earlier occasions, I was wondering how my team (uesers and non users) would handle this more overt category where brand design is driven by erotic and provocative visuals (especially in India).

Three major discomforts were noticed in my team

1. How to open the screen or webpage of sexually erotic pictures of models and couples (termed pornographic) for situation analysis during office hours 
2. How to brief and discuss with the team on the existing trends and design vocabulary used by several brands having direct competition (internationally the design vocabulary is very different, almost perpendicular)
3. How to review the new design that was developed and explaining why someone had used a particular style/pose/gesture/body/ body language or something like that

My team dealt with the situation very boldly and did not let the nature of the project disturb the rhythm of the job. Everyone took the task at hand in a very mature way and again something was like déjà vu – we are doing it for someone outside our space hoping that the end customer will like it and accept the brand design. The spirit in the design wing was more upbeat and humorous rather than embarrassing and one of guilt. The team was so indifferent yet involved that for few moments porn had become a perspective of life, a way of good life, performance oriented and not taboo. Many a times it was difficult to say when a person was watching porn literally or doing homework for brand design. Hilarious isn’t it.

One lesson I learnt from these few experiences is that DESIGN has the power to overcome all inhibitions or can lend the power to mitigate all inhibitions. It is not always about good looks in design; it is about what is behind the DESIGN, the motive, the essence and the spirit of the creator and the user thereafter.    

DESIGN makes you forget who you are and why are you there. It only makes you feel, Oh God what wonder have I done.