While at a commercial design awards event a couple of months ago, I discovered that the submitted work was judged strictly on aesthetics. In fact, the “Judges’ Choice Award” went to a design that was rejected by the client because the design solved the problem in a way that was ineffective for the target audience. was not used because the artwork involved couldn’t be cleared by the copyright holders.
“Art for art’s sake” doesn’t belong in the business world. Commercial design (logos, websites, brochure, direct mail, etc.) is not an exercise in aesthetics, it’s an exercise in effectiveness.
While aesthetics plays a large role in what makes a design successful, it’s more important for a design to speak to its intended audience and evoke the intended response than it is for the design to look nice to everybody. In fact there are some instances where a business or organization doesn’t want to look super polished, for fear of alienating its market.
As a business marketer it is very important for you to work closely with your designer and make sure your intended audience is known. Sit down with your designer and management team and answer these questions:
- What is the purpose of this project? (What action or response do we expect?)
- Who is the intended audience?
- How will this audience be most effectively reached? (i.e., if it’s an elderly crowd, I might not run an email campaign)
- When should the audience take action? (Is this something they should immediately do, or are you trying to build awareness over time?)
- What will make this project successful? (Giving the company a certain look, converting 1,000 more sales, receiving 5,000 email signups, etc.)
Finally, you need to know who is going to manage the campaign. Often my most successful designs are not the ones that are the most beautiful, but the ones that are the most functional for my clients. For example, If you are going to be maintaining your new website, make sure the site is built so you can manipulate everything you would possibly ever want to change. Otherwise you’ll have to go back to the designer, pay the hourly rate, and wait 2 weeks for something you should have been able to accomplish in 20 minutes.
At the end of the project, review the five questions above, perhaps with a member of your target audience. This review process is critical to ensuring that you actually achieved the desired results.
I love great design as art, and I will always enjoy looking at it and learning new techniques from it. But designers learn (and sometimes forget) early on in their design training that “form follows function.” In commercial design, aesthetic follows effectiveness.
photo credit: evelynishere
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Excellent post Drew, I served on an evaluation board for the AMA's yearly Spectrum Awards in Phoenix a couple of years ago, while I was impressed with the creativity of the projects, I found that the applicants fell short in reporting what their bottom-line results were and why they designed the project the way they did.
Whether designers like it or not, you're right – “form follows function”.
“Design without a marketing direction and purpose is just art…and art's not going to make your client or you any money in the long run”.
Great post here my friend, feel free to check out what I am doing at http://www.beingastarvingartistsucks.com, I bet you'll enjoy it. Hope to hear from you – I'll be sure to stop back.
@JeremyTuber
Great points, Jeremy! Your site looks great, I'll be sure to follow it on a regular basis.
Sorry to jump on the defensive here Drew but I've got to assume you're referring to the piece the came out of our office at the University: IMU Marketing+Design. Here's the poster series in question which won the Judge's Choice award despite not being produced:
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_1.png
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_2.png
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_3.png
I want to clarify this piece was not rejected by the client outright but was not used because the artwork involved could not be cleared by the copyright holders.
That said, the questions you propose are good. Audience was our #1 consideration on this project. The client wanted to reach 18-21 year old men and the approach we found most effective with our test groups was humor. Thinly-veiled “dick jokes” to be blunt.
The intention was to create a campaign that was a bit crass and humorous to get young men laughing and talking, but more importantly thinking about why this sort of misogynistic behavior is ridiculous. I can assure you the art was the final consideration, settling on a style our test group found aesthetically interesting.
Thank you for clarifying your work, Dan. As I mentioned in the article, I think the design is great, and I misspoke as to why the work wasn't used. I have corrected my error in the post, and I appreciate learning that you were so diligent in designing for your target audience.
My point in this post was not to take anything away from your efforts, but to look at how we all evaluate commercial design. I appreciate you sharing your insights into how you created that campaign.
Cheers! – Drew
Just because the design was aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean it isn't meeting marketing requirements. Frankly, that's why he is a good designer. It looks great AND it works. Definitely not “art for art's sake”.
Hi Sarah, I like Dan's work and I respect his design prowess (I have complimented Dan on his work before). As I said above, I misspoke regarding this particular project, and I corrected the article.
The point of the article wasn't to diss anyone, but to talk about how we evaluate design in general. As I say in the post, “aesthetics play a large role in what makes a design successful …”
Sorry to jump on the defensive here Drew but I've got to assume you're referring to the piece the came out of our office at the University: IMU Marketing+Design. Here's the poster series in question which won the Judge's Choice award despite not being produced:
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_1.png
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_2.png
http://www.recreant.net/images/poster_3.png
I want to clarify this piece was not rejected by the client outright but was not used because the artwork involved could not be cleared by the copyright holders.
That said, the questions you propose are good. Audience was our #1 consideration on this project. The client wanted to reach 18-21 year old men and the approach we found most effective with our test groups was humor. Thinly-veiled “dick jokes” to be blunt.
The intention was to create a campaign that was a bit crass and humorous to get young men laughing and talking, but more importantly thinking about why this sort of misogynistic behavior is ridiculous. I can assure you the art was the final consideration, settling on a style our test group found aesthetically interesting.
Thank you for clarifying your work, Dan. As I mentioned in the article, I think the design is great, and I misspoke as to why the work wasn't used. I have corrected my error in the post, and I appreciate learning that you were so diligent in designing for your target audience.
My point in this post was not to take anything away from your efforts, but to look at how we all evaluate commercial design. I appreciate you sharing your insights into how you created that campaign.
Cheers! – Drew
Just because the design was aesthetically pleasing doesn't mean it isn't meeting marketing requirements. Frankly, that's why he is a good designer. It looks great AND it works. Definitely not “art for art's sake”.
Hi Sarah, I like Dan's work and I respect his design prowess (I have complimented Dan on his work before). As I said above, I misspoke regarding this particular project, and I corrected the article.
The point of the article wasn't to diss anyone, but to talk about how we evaluate design in general. As I say in the post, “aesthetics play a large role in what makes a design successful …”