fred design

Design – A moral dilema

This article follows a blog by David Quay on the first things first manifesto in 2000, which I read on the Grafik blog. The manifesto argues that designers are using their skills entirely from commercial or advertising benefites. Basically, to sell products. It suggests that designers should take more of a moral stand on this issue. An excerpt featured in the Grafik article is below…

“We, the undersigned, are graphic designers, photographers and students who have been brought up in a world in which the techniques and apparatus of advertising have persistently been presented to us as the most lucrative, effective and desirable means of using our talents. We have been bombarded with publications devoted to this belief, applauding the work of those who have flogged their skill and imagination to sell such things as: cat food, stomach powders, detergent, hair restorer, striped toothpaste, aftershave lotion, before shave lotion, slimming diets, fattening diets, deodorants, fizzy water, cigarettes, roll-ons, pull-ons, and slip-ons. By far the greatest time and effort of those working in the advertising industry are wasted on these trivial purposes, which contribute little or nothing to our national prosperity.”

The idea of morals in graphics is one that has always interested me. I suppose I have always thought of graphic design, or the vast amount of graphic design as being an immoral profession. Essentailly it is the same as marketing and advertising as trying to sell something. Trying to persuade someone they need something they probably don’t in a bid for them to part from the cash. I suppose I always hang on to the thought that design is about communication. It is about the getting a message across in the purest fashion. That somehow makes it seem more pure, surely communication is a good thing. The fact remains though that it is still communicating messages to sell. After all, even advertising for charities often aims to encourage donations by installing feelings of guilt, or shock. Obviously the cause is not for profit and therefore more moral but the technique and the goal is much the same.

I remember in college, learning about the theories behind many advertising campaigns. It consisted of selling mini eutopias to people who are unfulfilled. Creating needs by exploiting peoples insecurities. Obviously these sound horrendously immoral, but to be honest, as design usually follows either marketing or advertising, it falls into the same boat.

The Grafik article by David Quay also argues that there is little difference when distinguising between graphics for a museum or art gallery and graphics on consumer packaging and advertising. This again I found interesting and probably correct. Quay argues that often museums and art galleries charge for entrance, so what makes this so moral. Again the goal is the same and what is the difference between this and selling consumer products?

Also there is the question of practicality. It is all very well for people who are well established designers, who can pick and choose their work, but many can’t. The fact is the majority of the work that pays the bills will be for a cause of proffit. After all, it is this profit that pays for the designers in the first place. Obviously we would all like a profession that helps humanity in a profound and meaningful way, but it is not always possible to do just this. Instead we make a choice to take work on to support ourselves and our family instead which is still a moral reason.

Obviously I agree that there are some causes that require a moral standpoint. Tobacco advertising or something that can really harm your fellow man is a cause worth standing up for. But against all consumerism? surely that is impossible.

So what do you think? where do you think a designer should draw a moral line as to what he or she will or will not design for? Any opinions welcome.

New legible – a new typeface based on Wim Crouwels new alphabet

I saw an interview with Wim Crouwell the other day on helvetica the movie. He mentioned that it was not uncommon in the 1990’s for designers to use elements of his new alphabet, but editing specific characters to make it slightly more legible. This sounded like great fun, so with the help of fontstruct, the very cool font constructing website, I had a go. Its called new legible, you can download it by clicking the link here. I love new alphabet, and wanted a practical version I could use for posters and headers. Its quite different with each character kept as simple as possible, whilst true to its classic form.

Anyway, would love some feedback, so let me know what you think? Am getting some of the posters printed so will put a post up to see if anyone wants one. Alternatively drop me an email on the contact page.

Should a brand always be consistent?

This post will look at 2 distinct brands, MTV and British Airways, who in their past have displayed similar strategies. Both employed an element of freedom, MTV in its ever changing logo and British Airways who in 1997 used different ‘fine art’ designs on their plane tails. Hower for one company the strategy has proved successful, for the other, not so much. So why is this?

This post follows the release of the new MTV ‘brand refresh‘. Since 1981, MTV have built their brand on flexibility, on a logo that changes. This is obviously quite unusual for a logo which is usually kept as consistent as possible.

The MTV brand has been revolutionary since it first launched in 1981, with no colour or strict identity guidelines issued. Instead it was designed to be flexible. The logo almost stood as a frame or a blank canvas to be played with, and played with, and played with. It has appeared in many different forms, covered in fur, to dripping with blood and made out of frozen ice.

The new logo, which rather than a logo is described as a brand refresh, still follows this philosophy. Visually it is not much different, with just the rather long legs given a trim. What this does however is make it more TV dimensionally sized, in a more horizontal format than previously.

Conceptually it follows the same theory. It is still a blank canvas. Now however, the concept is to put photos inside it, much like a TV again. Thats not to say that it can’t still be used with dripping blood, just that it is suggested to be rather, a container for images. This follows other logos, not least of all, the concept behind the controversial, london olympics logo by Wolf Holins

So the logo is still about freedom. But is it actually more free than previously? To me it feels more constrained. I liked the fact previously the logo stood by its shape, and its skin could be redrawn. I suppose you could argue this fact still has not changed, but then why re-do it in the first place. To me the format, now suits image and video cropping so I presume this was the reason.

But lets take a step back for a moment. Is this a good idea for branding. The idea of branding is usually to be recognised for consistently giving the same message, both visually and other. So if MTV have previously had success with a logo that looks different on a daily basis, what is technically correct way from a branding strategy point of view?

Where MTV have had success with a changing brand others have failed. OK, so its not a logo, but British Airways attracted contraversy in the late 1990’s for changing the design of the plane tails. The idea was to use fine art designs by different artists to move away from the ‘arrogant‘ feel of the previous tails showing a flowing union jack flag. Obviously this would not be as recognisable as one symbol and the idea was instead that you would know it was BA as it was not recognisable. Even more contraversy followed as the differen’t designs were said to confuse air crew controllers who could not tell whose plane it was. Whilst this was happening Virgin Atlantic fuelled the fire by refreshing their own brand with the union jack displayed on the front of the plane. So why was this such a branding mishap, and yet the flexibility of MTV a success?

Of course, ultimately good branding all depends on the client. For a edgy brand such as MTV a logo that changes is perhaps a reflection of a diverse audience. The brand works over so many different programmes, so it is right is should be adaptable. You could also argue that because of its foundation as a television channel, people always know what they are looking at.

With British airways and the different tail designs, it was the most recognisable part of the plane. So that was all people saw and therefore could not tell what plane it was in a crowded sky or airport. With MTV, chances are, somebody knows what channel they are on, and therefore make the connection with the logo.

Also, we must look at the essence of the brand. With British Airways it was almost its Britishness which was its selling point. Someone once said to me they thought people liked the idea of an old school pilot who speaks in a posh accent, wears a tightly trimmed moustache and only ever dresses in uniform. That they felt safer with this image. I think this is what British Airways stood for. Almost a slice of British History still existed in one company. So therefore the idea to move away from the ‘arrogant’ feel of this was probably incorrect. People who chose to perhaps pay extra in order to fly BA probably liked it. It made them feel like they were getting quality.

To conclude, of course there is no single right way, but only the right way for a particular client. As we have seen, what was right with MTV was completely wrong with British Airways. One brand embodied creativity and the other quality. Any branding brief must first get to heart of the client, what does their brand represent? From this, in most cases it should grow outwards and not to change too drastically.

Are graphic designers paid enough?

Design as a profession is not a career which people generally enter into for financial reasons. It is something which ignites passion rather than supplies financial security. Indeed it is not uncommon for designers to turn down better paid jobs so they can pursue creativity. However in this post I wanted to ask the question: How well are designers paid?

I suppose what motivated me to ask this question was seeing a chart of salaries both freelance and permanent. What supprised me most of all was the comparison to rates for people who work alongside designers in design based agencies, but perform account roles. It seems to me the job consists of several elements: managing internal specialist, such as designers, meeting deadlines, issuing briefs after discussing projects with clients and of course, once the work is done, presenting and defending the results. The job may well have its creative elements, but it’s just as much about admin and project management.

I must admit that I am speculating to some degree here as I’m a designer an accounts manager, I don’t fully know. And whilst these skills are all admirable and definitely necessary, I am not sure why it justifies higher pay rates to that of a designer. Surely much of what this entails is presenting a designer’s work. As good as your presentation skills may be, most of the outcome of that particular meeting will depend on the quality of the design work.

To point out the differences, below are the comparing tables from major players (a design recruiters website). It appears to give career stages and experience in contrast to salary expectations. A graduate designer’s wage starts out at 17k, where a graduate account handler is 18-20k. Thats a difference of up to 3k, at a very early career stage, and quite a big one. The senior account handler, which is shown to be the same level as a middleweight designer, earns up to 8k more for a similar experience level (26-30 in comparison to 30-38). Its a bit less clear towards the very top end, but a design director earns 45-60k, in contrast to a board director, which is 70k plus. Again quite a difference.

So why the differences? I think probably the sad truth is that it all comes down to what an employee can get away with, to how much competition there is and supply and demand. As already mentioned, design is a profession that is born from passion and therefore is considered an enjoyable profession. An artistic one if you will. Therefore, there are a lot of designers and thus competition for individual jobs. So designers, no matter how much talent they possess are forced to take low wages to gain employment. Perhaps there is less competition or more demand for account handling positions?

So what is the solution for the designer of today? The sad fact is that there is only a limited number of highly paid jobs available and probably not every designer will end up with one. Do they therefore drift over to account management? Is that the next step in career evolution following a path to studio manager? Or do they follow the increasing trend of going freelance or starting their own studios? Either way, the decisions are difficult ones to make and not without risk.

Of course, not being an expert on the account side, it is very possible I have got much of this information wrong, so apologies for any inaccuracies or offence. But I would love to hear your opinions? Do you think the salary differences are justified? Is account handling a step up in the career ladder from design? Be great to hear your views. Happy designing or account handling everyone…