Logic Based Design - Design is 50% Selling
Imagine a world were design wasn’t subjective; imagine a world were design intentions were in-sync with design executions. A design’s worst enemy is not the input of a non-designer – a design’s worst enemy is when its designer can’t sell it. Design is only half the process, being able to sell that design is where the real work gets done. Without being able to sell your design to its audience; your design intentions will never match its execution.
Lets make one thing very clear up-front, there needs be a distinction between design and art (the details of that are for another post). We are not talking about self-expression or creative freedom – we are talking about design for the sake of an objective. Far too often have I sat among fellow “designers” to hear them bitch and complain about clients and colleagues who don’t “get it”. I say to you, you elitist designer, don’t blame them for “not getting it” – in fact, blame yourself for not “giving it to them”. I’ve always coined myself a “business-oriented-designer” and perhaps it is my degree in advertising & graphic design that fuels this fire – but the simple truth is that very rarely are you in that perfect situation of ideal client and simplistic project that your design will sell itself. Just as it is your job to create the design, it is your job and responsibility to sell that design. So, how do you sell your design?
Since the first time my worked had been critiqued, I’ve been touting the use of what I call “logic-based-design”. It is a term that we at nclud use religiously both internally and with our clients. It is a simple thought – every element of your design must have logic associated with it. If you can’t explain why an element exists the way it is – it shouldn’t exist. From the size of your canvas and margins to your color and font choices – everything should have rhyme and reason. If you choose purple for a heading, it must be for a reason beyond the fact that you, the artist, are in a “purple mood” today. Your mood, or personality for that matter, doesn’t drive business strategy, user behavior or brand appropriateness – so why is it involved in the design you are presenting? If you picked purple; pick it because it compliments the brand or perhaps acts as the perfect contrast to other elements, maybe it appeals to the product or audience. When elements exist with logic behind them, the discussion goes from subjective to strategic. When there is a clash of thoughts around a subjective argument, yours at the bottom of the ladder will never triumph — however, a strategic discussion whose main point is being driven by the industry expert designer holds much weight and is very much respected.
The next time a client or colleague doesn’t “get it” – be prepared to sell your design and ensure the discussion goes from subjective to strategic. It is important to mention that logic-based-design works both ways. As a client or colleague inserts their subjective opinions to “better” your design – call them out on the decision, force them to apply logic; if none exist, then the element should not exist.
Credit where credit is due: I’ve been meaning to write about logic-based-design for sometime now. I was recently inspired by one of the most insightful conversations I had at BarCampDC this past weekend with Jenna Marino, a designer at AOL. It may have been that I was on the verge of drunkenness, but we started to rant about amazing designers whose designs are lost simply because they can’t sell – she eventually demanded, “Design is 50% selling”; I couldn’t agree more.
Originally Posted on: nclud’s sketchbook
- August 14th, 2007
- 13comments
- I am a proud member of the 9rules network
I am in complete agreement with you. I coined the term “goal oriented design” though. If clients don’t get it then sure enough users won’t.
Mike –> that is a great term to use … I think I will start throwing it around see what sort of response I get. Thanks for the comment.
Interesting timing — Nick Myers, principle at Cooper, just posted an insightful post this morning: Using research to end visual design debates.
I guess timing is everything. Nice write-up.
Nice Article. Yes, we are very proud of our JJ.
Alisa –> thanks. Yeah I am glad I got to finally meet you guys — I’ve heard a lot of good things; they are all true!
Martin - Does Selling and “getting it” differ from educating your clients/co-workers? If so how, and does it effect the socio economic state of puritans before World War 1.
All kidding aside, In terms I see a difference, in action I see the same.
Doug –> HA HA! Um…”yes”, that is my final answer.
I think “educating” clients/co-workers is a very difficult thing to do; especially those with an ego — they rarely want to be educated on anything, especially from a “designer”. And most of that attitude comes from that fact that most think what we do is subjective (so anyone can do it, right?).
My point/goal is simple — remove the subjectivity from design and you now have the upper-hand when presenting your concepts. Your opinion becomes more valuable when those around you start to see you as less of a production implementor and more of a strategic thought-leader.
We are the industry experts, but being an expert at something subjective is near meaningless.
Strategic Design. Yes, yes, and yes! …and yes.
Sometimes its really hard to take the time to get someone to understand design as transportation, a vehicle towards an objective - not art or a document. I’ve geeked out for 30min with a client about why/funnel/process/scale/etc… why the design choices were made… only to be asked, “well, can we make it blue, I like blue.” Have your blue, that’s not what I was talking about!!!
Truthfully, that’s my fault. They’re really smart people, just not here - which is why they hire someone else. I skipped the “identify the problem” step so while I was having a “user-decision” discussion, they’re thinking they’re having a “pretty” discussion which ultimately causes them to feel more disconnected. (they’d much rather nod when they feel stupid, than say “i don’t get it”) You can explain the why’s all day long in detail, but if you haven’t set the stage and explained why its business critical, your clever exciting solutions mean nothing.
On the designers side, clients aren’t actually paying for a design. They pay for design that doesn’t hinder a process, looking good is often reserved for your personal satisfaction and ego. If more designers could let their design get out of the way, we’d hear less horror stories from clients about how the last guy was terrible, and “just never got me.”
Devo –> right on; great insight, thanks!
couldn’t have said it better myself, sir. thanks for the most ridiculous, tipsy, thought-provoking conversation i’ve had in years.
@jenna thanks again — Alex and John can attest to the fact that I love nothing more than getting some drinks and starting a design rant.
In architecture school, the reasons were… well, reasoned (if not always successful). However, heading over to the art building for a graphic design crit, the amount of “i felt..” or “i thought it’d be interesting to..” made my skin crawl.
I completely agree about production vs strategy. If you’re the “make it pretty” guy, your voice will never be heard over the drone of mid-level management trying desperately to stand out by doling out arbitrary opinions. You’re just left to polish the turd.
Now sometimes, you really are polishing a turd. And its those times i thank the stars there are people who just like to make things pretty. God bless em.
HA HA … well said Devo