This dilemma came up over lunch today with a friend, PhD and New York university marketing professor.

Back Story

Many years ago, R.BIRD developed a service offering called, “Off-the-Shelf.” The premise was simple. For a small, fixed fee, we would take a look at an existing product package design and develop one design-improvement response with rationale for the approach.

We believed this offering would open up a largely untouched market: Smaller companies or teams with limited budgets or planning that might, otherwise, not begin to move forward on any degree of change. In other words: Off-the-Shelf would be a quick-fix, low-resistance solution from a proven resource.

This offering turned out to be wildly UN-successful. Zero interest. No takers. But… there was one completely unexpected side-effect.

We had arbitrarily chosen “Jiffy Mix” as the model we used to illustrate the potential results of the offering. Shortly after publishing the offering on our web site, we received a call from Howard “Howdy” Holmes, President and CEO of Chelsea Milling Company, the makers of Jiffy Mix.

That phone call resulted in a mutually-beneficial and rewarding relationship that still continues nearly a decade later.

Fast Forward

While discussing new business development in present time with aforementioned marketing prof, he made two observations:

1. Many creative people, including prospective client contacts, resist the idea that an outsider should come in and change things, and
2. They are visual people. Proving our expertise via case studies with other clients is abstract. Wouldn’t a visualization of what we could do for them, specifically, be more intriguing?

Both ideas hit home, as I recalled the Jiffy Mix experience with Chelsea Milling Company. In that very successful and accidental situation, we had:

1. Not suggested any immediate need for change, but
2. Demonstrated, visually, an opportunity for incremental improvement

Proactive Audition

I’ve been a design professional for 35 years now. I’ve always refused any client or prospect suggestion that we show them something up-front without compensation. Never done that. Never will. In fact, I am an early adopter and supporter of the AntiSpec.com community.

In my “Off-the-Shelf” example, there was no client. There was no brief. There was no need or call for solution. Most significanly in the end, the result was extremely positive for R.BIRD and for the “unsuspecting” prospect.

Absolutely: If we take a request from a prospect to “prove” what we can do without compensation. It will never happen here. That’s not going to change, ever.

I expressed this to my marketing PhD friend. He was surprised, but offered the term, “proactive audition,” as a metaphor. When actors react to a call… an audition, they prove themselves with a quick, off-the-shelf performance. It’s not the real script, stage or audience. But, it’s the real you.

Academically Speaking

“The Dieline” claims to be the most popular destination in the world of package design. A good part of its content is “speculative.” Student works. Designer musings.

If a student speculates on what they believe Pepsi packaging could or should be, no one is going to fault them for the effort. But, is that Spec Work? Or is it, “Proactive Audition”?

I think the latter.

The Question

When is speculative work not work-on-spec?

A few weeks earlier, Inc. Magazine rang me up asking for R.BIRD’s opinion on a rather dramatic packaging redesign hitting the shelves from New England ice cream maker, “Gifford’s.”

There were two telephone interviews, followed by a couple more fact-checks and clarifications.

When the story was finally published, the 30-minutes in phone calls and notes had been boiled down to a few sentences. The fewer-than-100 words didn’t fully capture my thinking. There is a lot more to be said, both in support of and not-so-much in favor of the redesign.

Here are my own notes, taken during the interviews and follow-up sessions:

Original Package (above)
* Has changed little in the small company’s 30 year history
* Perfectly fine for a heritage brand in a local market, but…
* In any other, much larger context: so much like every other “micro-gourmet” brand
* There’s a million of ‘em!

Growing
* In order to grow into a larger market
* To attract an audience unfamiliar with the “Gifford” family name and brand
* A big, bold statement has to be made to get that attention
* The Briggs agency did the right thing.

The New Package
* The new Gifford’s logo is clever, simple and easily understood
* The very large, bold, cropped typography is what grabs attention at the shelf - attracting unfamiliar consumers
* It’s not necessary that it’s readable. Its role is just that - to get your attention - and it does
* Photo-illustrations of blueberries, mint leaves and lobsters (!) communicate flavor… and
* Create a center line on which the Gifford’s brand and graphics balance left and right
* The organic paper texture in the background quietly communicates, “natural, homemade, goodness.” It lays a foundation for trust in the brand.

Questions
* How will the stock clerk in the big stores orient the package on shelf? Carefully enough to properly center the flavor illustration?
* A professional eye understands the basis for the design, but will it “disorient” some consumers?
* Gifford’s is a local, family-owned brand with a long history. This seems to have been lost in the redesign. There is no clear “heritage” element to tell that story - at least not on the front panel
* For example, the tag line under the Gifford’s logo might, instead, say “famous since 1980.” That’s a start.

It was 1985 and the studio, now in its third year, was growing leaps and bounds with revenue doubling every year. But, something was wrong.

Margins were disappearing, while we were working harder than ever, despite hiring twice as many designers that year.

In an effort to discover the secrets to success as we grew, creative director, Christopher Mietlowski, and I attended a seminar offered by David Goodman, well-known designer and consultant. This one-day (October 2, 1985) workshop (How To Increase Your Profits) focused on growing a design business and changed, forever, the way R.BIRD manages projects, budgets, time and revenue.

The answer to our increasing business and reduced profit conundrum became plain as day: We had become “too good” at what we were doing. More clients and more projects were simply translating to more “busy-ness.” We worked harder and accomplished the same tasks in less and less time to meet more-and-more, shorter-and-shorter deadlines. Because we could.

We missed the point that, as we became better and faster at our profession, the value should increase. And, since we were billing our accounts based on hourly rates and not value-based fees, the effect on profits was dramatically negative.

You can define “better” in any dimension you like: speed, knowledge, experience, consistency, reputation, et cetera. No matter what, the better you become at whatever you do, exponential value applies.

This principal holds true without exception, to this day. Recently, it was suggested by a client contact that we should reduce our fees because, “you know the brand, you understand the business, and you’ve created successful solutions for the same brand and business many times over.”

Simple answer was this: “If you were suddenly diagnosed with brain cancer, of course, you would seek the specialist with the most knowledge, experience and success rate, yes? What would you expect to pay? More or less?”

I like to call this phenomenon the, “Superman effect.”

If Superman (not Clark Kent, mind you) were a designer on staff and we continued to manage fees based on “time required,” we would have been out of business exactly 25 years ago.

P.S. Twenty-five years later: Thanks, again, David Goodman, wherever you are.

The Question
We are working on a new corporate identity program and we began the process by asking a lot of questions about the client company, its business, partners, employees and history.

Suddenly, one of the executives pushed back with this comment, “What the heck does this have to do with creating a new logo?”

Our Answer
Well, we don’t know the answer to that… yet.

What does an Apple have to do with computers (or The Beatles)?
An Alligator and Sportshirts?
A Dog and Radios?
An Egg and Hosiery?

Here’s a closer-to-home, real-world example:

This is R.BIRD’s official, corporate logo, that appears on our executive stationery and adorns the glass wall of our conference room. So, what does this have to do with a design company? I can tell you.

It connects with the company, R.BIRD, in three meaningful and lasting ways:
# R.BIRD is a design company with a history, nearly 30 years now. So, we wanted a logo symbolic of traditional foundations, not current trends or graphic tricks.
# At the same time, we have always been forward-looking. The company was founded on that basis.
# Finally, to tie it all together, my “BIRD” family tree goes back to 1792 in this country when ancestor, Powell Bird, was the first non-native settler in what is now Sullivan County, PA. A true pioneer.

Now, no one in the public domain would know these things. But, everyone can intuitively connect on the first two points. Plus, there’s the added benefit of a story to tell behind the logo that will always resonate and ring true.

These are the kinds of things that come out of asking questions (our surveys, for example) that might, at first, seem to have nothing at all to do with “creating a new logo.”

P.S. The R.BIRD Explorer was drawn for us by Mike Bull and inspired by the style of his well-known “Indian Head” logo for Mohawk Paper company.

+++

Sharing
Here are links to the surveys we created to start this project. Feel free to use them as a model for you own initiative.
Corporate ID Survey for External Audience
Corporate ID Survey for Internal Audience

Related
What Does A Hummingbird Have To Do With Money?
What Does An Apple Have To Do With A Computer?

On a recent, bright and sunny, Sunday afternoon I found myself in a suburban Westchester music store that was hosting, “The Westchester Guitar Show,” an inaugural vintage guitar buy, trade and swap meet.

One of the exhibitor tables clearly stood out from the crowd and caught my eye. Julie Rosenberg hand paints and builds custom guitars. I felt an immediate connection and struck up a conversation. Like me, Julie is both musician and artist for many years. And she has found a calling in the convergence of these two skills, turning it into an innovative business idea.

Coincidentally, only four days later, I attended the The 99% Conference here. One of the speakers was Frans Johansson, author of The Medici Effect who believes successful innovation most often happens at the convergence of diverse disciplines.

It’s interesting to have found a real-life example of this principal. So, you are in a good place, Julie! Good luck to you!

Vintage guitar shows, meets and stores used to be plentiful 20 years ago in and around New York City, which was when I began collecting. As a former player and performer, collecting vintage instruments is one way to keep the connection alive. (I would sometimes run into Steve Howe, an avid collector, at such gatherings.) The available inventory of instruments is dwindling and prices continue to climb, which has resulted in fewer shows and public venues for sought after instruments.

Vintage guitar collecting is now a certified investment activity where returns can be healthy, far outperforming equity markets and other commodities. Musician, artist or investor, if you’d like to look into vintage guitar collecting, you might start here: Vintage Guitar Magazine with a subscription.

Our client design briefs are, generally, quite complete and fully understood. (When they are not, we follow our own survey form to facilitate writing a brief.) As a result, we are able to write a concise project proposal that outlines goals for the first step, expected outcomes and parameters for the following steps.

Our first phase creative explorations can then be quite broad. All options are viable concepts and fully address all the parameters listed in the project brief. Curiously, feedback sometimes avoids comment on what has been presented and, instead, focuses on what has not been presented.

When this happens, phase one feedback suggests a broader range of exploration, rather than a process to narrow the field through careful refinements. This is both counter-productive for the project as well as unprofitable for the designer; creating an impasse.

There needs to be structure in the way early concepts are evaluated and how feedback is communicated. From both sides of the equation, let’s look at how improve the effectiveness of Phase One evaluation and feedback:

Designer: Rationalize the Phase One Concepts
Though, it might seem to be apparent from the project brief and approved proposal, be sure that Phase One ideas are, one-by-one, supported with a written, objective explanation as to how they answer the parameters of the brief and why they are being recommended. Avoid subjective terms, such as, “we like.” Provide written reasoning as to how each concept achieves the goals agreed upon in the original brief and the project proposal. It needs to be in writing even when there is a verbal review, since the designer will not be present to support the concepts as they progress through the client organization.

Client: Evaluate Each Concept
Likewise, the client should respond in writing to each one of the concepts presented. What are the Pros and Cons, Positives and Negatives, Assets and Liabilities for each concept? (Avoid subjective answers, such as “we don’t like…”).

In this way, each concept will have a better chance of moving forward into a refinement step that is more rationally defined and the project will be less likely to expand and create issues with timing or cost. Even the feedback on concepts that don’t move ahead is valuable and will help to build better understanding of overall decision-making.

Concept Rationale and Feedback
Follow a simple, written framework to support each concept and facilitate more concise feedback for Phase One design presentations. A good way to do this is to include the concept rationale on the same page as the concept. Encourage the client to do the same on the return. Here’s an example:

Example: Concept Rationale and Feedback (PDF)

Discipline
Both Designer and Client must be disciplined to provide written rationale and detailed feedback. It is all too easy to allow familiarity to become an excuse for shortcuts.

Finally, remember that refinement steps are generally expected to narrow the field of options and not to expand on them. If the latter is happening, then it could be an indication that the phase one brief was not sufficiently detailed or the phase one concepts presented were not fully understood.

Sometimes (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more) it’s difficult to get decision-makers to focus on the big-picture and to avoid the distraction of details. This is especially true early in strategy or concept development.

Here are some suggestions:
# Spread all the concepts out. Set aside those that connect based on your first, gut instinct. Move quickly.
# Set aside those that, instinctively, don’t seem right. (The “include” method is preferred - as in option 1.)
# Group concepts by any agreed similarity or other criteria. Choose standouts from any group.
# Group concepts by purely visual themes. Choose one standout design from any group.
# Use the “Eye Doctor” method. Go two-by-two and decide which one is “Better or Worse,” “Better or Worse.” Only the “Better” moves forward to the next comparison. Think on your feet.
# Use comparisons to facilitate feedback with simple language and visual support. “Concept X is a winner, but it needs to say ‘spectacular’ more strongly… like concept Y does.” Consider the ideas eliminated by other methods, too.
# Score each concept on rating scale(s) of your choosing. Compile total scores. Three or more participants.

Sounds like a good idea, but certain labels within the product line read as follows:

ORTHO ecosense™ brand*
*not intended to imply environmental safety…

Marketer’s plan to pre-approve production companies called ‘absurd,’ ‘shortsighted’

Count me in on “absurd” and “shortsighted.”

This initiative from P&G seems to be aimed, first, at producers rather than strategists, but still unsettling. As principal and founder of a brand strategy firm of 3 decades, I’ve been on the receiving end of exactly the same “process” more than once applied (with devastating results) to creative and strategy. This includes demands for “transparency” (most despised biz-speak) and requests for firm revenues by client, expenses, staff salaries, et cetera, no matter public or privately held.

For new readers: I have ended and declined R.BIRD client relationships worth $millions defending our value against client proposals toward commodity.

In this creativity-online.com article, one excerpt sums up my reaction:

“When you’re in a world blasted with so much imagery and you need to stand out to make a difference, you want to get the most talented, most creative people to make your stuff stand out. The way to do that is not to bully their creative choices or create a shallower talent pool.”

As example: R.BIRD was very recently tendered an RFP from a major national brand. The RFP came to us (surprised?) via a third-party, procurement agency. Despite that, we considered the problem and wrote our recommended response with rationale, process and cost. The response was,”Fill in the rate card only.” The result of such a process endorses an ever-shallower talent pool of resources best at reducing costs and nothing else.

In college, I studied fine art: Drawing, painting, and printmaking. I even traveled to Rome and Florence to study art history. As an aspiring illustrator, I had three significant influences at the time: Leonardo, Frazetta and Dean.

Today, while cleaning out my browser bookmarks, I found a link, that I saved as many as 10 years ago, to an artist I admired for the same reasons as the aforementioned trio. His works are, at the same time, fantastic, powerful and artistically sensitive.

Take a look! Pascal Blanche

P.S. As I acknowledge influences in this post, I must include Professor of Art and Dean of Humanities and Fine Arts, Emeritus, at State University of New York, James Mullen, (and more ) who taught all fortunate to be in his classes, “how to see,” the most valuable skill I have ever learned as an artist and creative thinker.

Late this evening, I made the time to review a presentation by Alessandro Finetto, Director Global Consumer Design, Whirlpool Europe, at DMI’s Realities conference 13 in Europe.

My big takeaway from Mr. Finetto’s presentation is this:

He knows, instinctively as a designer, that 250 new product introductions in one year is, plainly and simply, too much. Why? The costs are high for development, delivery and risk versus reward. Simple.

It is no longer reasonable to throw out every idea under the sun, because one of them will surely succeed. Venture capital firms know this, too, and they are much more particular about how they spread seed money today.

However, new product design and exploration is not less needed in such an economically challenged environment, but more important than ever. It must continue.

Design and innovation is an extremely efficient method. It involves fewer, and more specialized, team members that require relatively small budget percentages. The results, simultaneously, develop innovative opportunities and filter the results to rational, yet intuitive and discrete, resource commitments.

In other words, now is the time to expand innovative and creative explorations, rather than to contract or eliminate them.

Your thoughts, please.

Inspired by this article in the New York Times, I’m going to try some creative marketing and offer our book on package design, Patterns:The Book, at a special price every Tuesday!

According to author, Motoko Rich, Amazon (via the Kindle) has effectively set the bar for delivery of digital book content at just about $9.99. For many non-paper book buyers, that’s the limit.

Authors and publishers who differ claim that the reader is paying for content, not medium, and the price should be set accordingly.

As both author and publisher, I do agree and disagree with some features of each opinion. But, let’s see what happens in this real-world test! For a limited time, we will offer Patterns: The Book (PDF) for just $9.99 every Tuesday.

That’s:
* Less than $1 for every category report
* A little bit more than a nickel ($0.06) for each observation
* Or, about 5 cents per page!

$9.99 on Tuesday

I’ve always been fascinated with web site analytics.

My favorites, I rely on every day, are:
* Mint, and
* Google Analytics

Now, add to that list:
* Quantcast

Quantcast is very interesting, because its data analysis and presentation is more Marketer-focused (demographics, et cetera) versus the Webmaster (Time on page and so on).

Check it out. I’m going to be watching.

I was astounded to see, that when comparing our domain to that of a major competitor, our female audience was nearly doubled. Now, I must know why.

Lately, we’ve found ourselves looking, first, to digital or online publishing before anything else. Why? Practical reasons, really: faster, more portable, easily updated. My current favorite for R.BIRD publications is ISSUU. Publisher and user experience seems flawless and there are further options for embedding and customization of UI.

I like this platform so much that we used Issuu for first preview of our book, Patterns: about design in consumer packaging.

Wacky Packages, first introduced by Topps Chewing Gum nearly 40 years ago, are back in the form of a coffee-table-worthy book to be prized by casual curators everywhere.

Wacky Packages were a series of stickers and gum cards made in the late 60s and early 70s. I looked forward to my weekly trip to the local “five and dime” to collect the latest. And it probably did cost a nickel.

Ted Anthony of Associated Press put it this way, “Wacky Packages turned the supermarket into a buffet of obnoxious jokes, bad puns and skeevy illustrations.”

My bedroom headboard and high school notebooks were plastered with these wacky pack stickers when they first appeared. Schoolmates and I loved these irreverent blasts as pure comedy - completely unaware of their social context… or fateful prediction of career. (My bed was even covered with a Wacky Packages quilt - still in my possession!)

Imagine a time when commercial creativity was largely free from analysis… a time when reckless expression and social satire was encouraged and rewarded. (Thank you, Andy.)

Check out a complete collectors reference here:
Gregory Grant’s Wacky Packages Web Page

What’s your favorite?