Discuss further in the
Member's Forums

Tonight, in a separate Observations article (Finding a new label), I posted a link to a website set up specifically to rally graphic designers to find a better label to use than "graphic designer." As I said in that posting, this effort is admirable but somewhat pointless without an underlying change in the behaviour of most designers. It did get me thinking, however...

I think we need a definition of design that cuts to the heart of why clients need it. This definition would not be the only definition of design, but the one that works best with clients. Of course, other definitions are needed for when designers talk to each other, or for when academics talk about design. Today, I only want about the definition for clients, because the most fundamental problem for the design profession seems to be getting respect from clients.

A powerful definition for clients would convey the effects that designed interfaces could have a client's business problem. For the purpose of this exercise, I classify as an "interface" as anything that sits between a client and their customers that can conceivably be designed, eg. uniforms, brochures, identities, packaging, signage, etc.

The definition would be cast in language and concepts that clients are familiar with. This type of definition would act as a 'skeleton' upon which any good designer could add the 'flesh' of real world experience and examples.

So would you like to play? I have laid out a 'thought starter' version below:

A business interface that has been well designed is attention getting, meaningful, delightful and memorable. A great design will be all these things, but will have its effect in that particular order.

Attention getting is an obvious requirement - how can you deliver a message (verbal, emotional, subliminal or otherwise) to a specific audience if you can't get their attention first?

Probably the most important point to make to a client is that 'attention getting' doesn't need to mean loud or garish, although it might if the designer determines that this is the most effective solution.

For a design to be meaningful requires an audience as well as a message. Great design ensures that the message is well targeted at the audience the client seeks. And that the message is delivered in the language of the audience.

An important but often overlooked implication of 'meaningful' is the trade-off between audience specificity and message specificity. For example, "CHEAP!!" is not a very specific message, but will definitely have a lot of meaning to a pretty broad audience. On the other hand, a design that communicates something as specific as "like those amazing chocolates from Fauchon in the 8th arrondissement in Paris," is only likely to mean something to the few individuals who are familiar with that store. I think it is always worth talking the client through how different design options can position their message differently along that trade-off.

Delightful is a trickier concept to explain, but the notion is that great design can associate a positive emotional response with the client's message, real 'good will', so to speak.

If a client balks at the concept of 'delightful', I reckon the easiest way to bring them around is to point out that the alternatives are to either irritate the audience, or provoke no emotional response at all.

Memorable is a no brainer because every client wants their fundamental message recalled when their audience makes a purchase or selection decision.

The all at once aspect of this definition is crucial because it highlights the fact that a design is a single coherent solution that embodies important trade-off decisions made by the client and designer. A big part of the value that a designer creates for the client is optimising the solution so that it meets each client's particular choices with respect to the relative importance of 'attention getting', 'meaningful', 'delightful' and 'memorable.' Optimising between these requirements is something only a good designer can do. Busting right out of the trade-offs is something that great designers do.

This definition completely avoids technical concepts like 'innovation' or 'out there' or 'wild'n funky.' This is intentional because it is up to the designer to develop the most effective and innovative way to deliver the client's message.

Finally, this definition sets up some criteria against which both the proposed design solutions and competitors' designs can be compared. The ability to do this is pretty important, because it enables the designer to influence the evaluation process and take it away from the nightmare of "I like / I don't like."

So, what are your thoughts on an effective definition of design for clients?

"I started as a commercial artist in print & advertising but my job description was defined as a finished artist. I then became a layout artist and after several years experience was employed as a designer. Then the term graphic artist & graphic designer became the norm. Now, graphic designer is used for all of these.

I feel that since the advent of the desktop computer this term has slowly lost it's meaning both in terms of the wide range of mediums we can now work in, as others have commented, but also the lack of professional standards and qualifications of some 'graphic designers'. Too many times I have had a client come to me after a bad experience with another designer and felt bewildered because they were unable to get an effective and well-made product.

Visual Communicator? Sounds too wanky! Perhaps it would be better to keep the name 'graphic designer' and concentrate on the standards of graphic designers. Anyway, even though most people these days have heard the term 'graphic designer', how many now the original meaning of the term 'graphic'!

I feel that those who are committed to design and the mediums they are designing in and who have trained in a professional manner should be able to convey to clients that they are a professional in their field without having justify themselves continually in opposition to those who have just picked up some graphics software and hung out their shingle stating that they too are a graphic designer.

If we had an accreditation program and promoted this accreditation to the general public rather than to each other and if we had more events targeting the general public celebrating the function of design and the designers (both the well known and not so well known), perhaps the public would not considered graphic design as just making something 'pretty', something they don't need (or need to pay for!) or a DIY project.

Perhaps then graphic design would be considered as a thoughtful process requiring both technical and creative expertise that is both useful and constructive!"

"I refer to my work/self as, I do corporate identity or branding as a graphic designer. My colleagues then laugh and teasingly refer to me as the Graphic Identist. the term graphic designer is as meaningful and descriptive as, say, manual laborer or driver. And we should all admit that the number of persons worldwide working under the label of graphic designer is nearly immeasurable. Graphic desginer reveals very little about the kind of work one actually does. What you do with your graphic design is who/what you are."

"Wow, there is some great dialogue here. Well done to all who have contributed.

I'd like to take an even further step backwards to discuss how we would define respect from our clients'. What is it that we actually want? The term 'respect from our clients' rolls off the tongue easily and sounds like a great goal, but do we want them to recognise us as the creative geniuses that we are (!), or merely to pay our bills on time? For instance, a client may not actually respect their accountant as a person, but they damn well know they need an accountant to help them run their business effectively, or indeed for the accountant to offer them improved business practices.

So, I'd like to know people's thoughts on what they want from clients. If the lack of respect was 'that' bad would any of us be in the design industry at all?"

"Very deep and vise words have been spoken here.

I would like to extend this debakle even further - how about forgeting about the; who we are? what we are? why we are? and other exsistencialistic questions and just agree that we (well the majority of us) are just well educated, observant, intelligent etc creatures and as such (as it is obvius from this discussions) we would rather spend lifetime discussing our moral values and obligations towards ourselves, our proffession and our clients than, as other business have done so, making sure we get paid for what we do.

We dont need to work on defining who we are - what should we call ourselwes etc. We need to work on BRANDING of ourselves and our profession. I hope that i don't need to explain that branding is not about logos and names shapes and colours. Its not about words either but, as Robyn has touched upon, emotions.

We need to work on emotions - we need to make our clients tremble with fear over the word "Graphic Designer". We need them to respect us, belive in us, and fear losing us.

Like lawyers - i get shivers and chill streams down my spine when i hear that word

So - how do we BRAND graphic designers?

As for the words - i thing we are on the right track... but we need to get tougher and meaner.

Design as proffession will not gain any reputation until we learn how to use fear in our beneffit."

"Defining our role is the most important and difficult creative problem we have ever faced. But it is just that - a creative problem. I think between us, we should be able to find a more fitting solution than GRAPHIC DESIGN. Or maybe we secretly LIKE the mysteriousness and inaccessibility of GRAPHIC DESIGN?!! It is not a very functional descriptive term. Using it is like doing a brochure for a retirement village in 6 point type because it looks COOL.

I look forward to an alternative. Please email me if you are interested in reading the essay I wrote earlier this year on the same topic."

"This, realy, is something that designers must breakthrough before any progression can be made. We as a profession are not presenting ourselves as well as we should in the society. Definition to me is not that important. What concerns me is the way we work and the strategies we implement for our clients. As Andrew Lewis mentioned, "Strategy is the creativity before the creativity"

There is a lot of work ahead of us!"

"As Project Director of a growing firm, I can say that what a lot of 'designers' or 'artists' overlook is their own marketing. I agree with the philosophy that the name change would only be effective if there is a change in how 'designers' portray themselves. We, as those in the 'graphic design' industry, reiterate to our clients that we can assist them in getting their message(s) accross, however, we frequently fail at doing so for ourselves. Absurdly enough, I think the concept is rather fundamental - market and brand yourself appropriately and your name/title will become irrelevant."

"Robyn, I like those last two words! We have been using a secondary line under our name for the last 5 year it's...

Communication that's memorable, emotive and enduring.

We also took the word 'graphic' out of our name 5 years ago.

I think it would be a benefit to us all if we could resolve this one!"

"Hi Andrew,

an age old issue: what is a graphic designer and what does he/she do?

I recall that you once told your parents that you were going to study graphic design and they said, "What's that?"...It seems nothing much has changed, especially with clients.

Why do we readily understand what an architect does? Or an interior designer? Or an advertising executive? Or a bricklayer? Or a gynocologist?

As shitty as the term "commercial artist " is and was, at least it readily communicated what today's graphic designer does...commercial art. We interpret client's strategies and briefs and act as a visual conduit between the seller of goods and services to the desired prospect ie the consumer.

The big problem here is that neither the words "commercial" nor "artist" have the cache of a reputable profession.....or is it that we did not give it enough support and understanding of the underlying issues when it needed the recognition of being a vital tool in the marketing team's armoury.

It seems that the term suffered from the cringe factor and some bright person from the naming department of Funk and Wagnalls came up with the absurd definition "graphic artist". And this was before the term "branding " was trendy, let alone used.

The dictionary definition for a graphic designer is: " a designer of pictures and text for books, magazines, advertising, etc." or less complimentary : " an artist who designs and makes prints". So who is responsible for these definitions and how do they get into these publications?

If these are the dictionary definitions, then what are our education administrators doing about correcting the definitions to align them with what they are teaching? Or are they teaching something else but forgot the ever important question of who they are?

That's the beginning of any successful strategy...know who you are.

If it's all about credibility, then why are the terms, "Alcopop" (teenage alcoholic beverages); "Pop Music" (Kylie is a reputable queen in this area); "Commercial Lawyer"; or for that matter, "Brand Consultant" so readily accepted.

Perhaps when we look at other categories we can learn from their examples and appreciate them for what they are and how they communicate to their consumers...whether they are successful or not, what makes them tick and can we adapt their learnings to help grow our own products or servces. It is where trends start, is fundamental to market research and assists with the go forward strategy.

As regards to an effecitve definition for clients, I wonder if the problem lies in your opening gambit "...somewhat pointless without an underlying change in the behaviour of most designers..."

A name (brand) change does nothing for an organisation unless there is a fundamental change in the behaviour of that organisation. In fact, a name change with no meaning can do more harm than good ( take the change from commercial art to graphic design as a prime example!)

So my advice is to identify the issues (and let's be fair, we need to do this from both sides...us and the client), pinpoint the problem and develop a strategy which will lead us to a solution.

If we do this, then clients will give us the respect we so eagerly crave and we will be seen as solving the probem as they would have done so themselves.

Have I helped with your answer by thinking of a name to fit our profession in our client's eyes? No.

The reason is simply this....when a client asks for a design solution to his problem, then he may not know what his problem is. It is the smarter consultants who work hard at identifying the real problem and developing a strategy that lays the foundation for the solution long before the design is done....design is the outcome not the solution.....As one of my design partners once said, "Strategy is the creativity before the creativity""

"Reply to Wacker:

Your point about these terms being interpreted as 'fluffy' is well made, but I would argue that these are primary effects. Things start to get interesting for clients if you can point out that these primary effects can then create second-order effects like:

• customers will put you in their shortlist of purchase options
• customers will be predisposed towards what you are selling

I think it is important that designers articulate the effects of their work so that the "magic" created is clear, because it increases the probability of the client realising that they cannot create these primary effects on their own. Once they have realised that, their need for a real designer will hopefully be less contentious.

Finally, I am not advocating these exact words, but rather putting them forward as tools that designers can incorporate into their own selling pitches, hopefully tailored to the specific expertise and qualities that they can deliver into the solution."

"Interesting Andrew........the words chosen sound a bit fluffy for corporate clients though..........
attention getting -
meaningful -
delightful - this is probably the worst, what about emotive
memorable -

I will have a go at a few of our latest and see if it works."

Return to Observations

AGDA Members: Discuss this article in AGDA's Business Forum.

andrew@lam-po-tangcom