> Page one of the New York Times on the day these paragraphs are written contains eight important news stories. Four of them, or one-half, are propaganda. The casual reader accepts them as accounts of spontaneous happenings. But are they? Here are the headlines which announce them: "TWELVE NATIONS WARN CHINA REAL REFORM MUST COME BEFORE THEY GIVE RELIEF," "PRITCHETT REPORTS ZIONISM WILL FAIL," "REALTY MEN DEMAND A TRANSIT INQUIRY," and "OUR LIVING STANDARD HIGHEST IN HISTORY, SAYS HOOVER REPORT."
> Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an exposition of the Powers' stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says is less important than what it is. It was "made public by the State Department to-day" with the purpose of presenting to the American public a picture of the State Department's position. Its source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department view.
> The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett's survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would "bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab," this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary Hoover's report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an opinion.
> These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the men behind these events influence public opinion.
Once the previous editor left, Wired dramatically declined. It's unfortunate... I used to look forward to getting it, now I doubt that I will continue to pay any mind to Wired at all.
Interesting takeaway for me is that a possible "exit" for a consulting company is becoming the in-house group for large corporation. Hadn't considered that before, but it makes perfect sense.
Surely this would be the same situation faced by any number of small businesses at any point in history, just with different jargon (small specialised business is subsumed by big rich business that wants that specialisation).
It's unfortunate that the article ended with advertisement for the author's venture, but I don't think that should take away from substance of the article because a lot of it is valid.
One thing the author neglected to mention:
UX is becoming a function and domain of IT.
That's why you're seeing IBM hire UX people in drove, because IBM wants to make UX bigger part of its IT services offering.
And it makes sense. Whether you like it or not, IT can make or break success of UX.
I manage a small ux team in a fortune 50 and I've come to conclusion that it's basically impossible to instill design centric thinking to business and product owners on consistent basis, which is something that agencies have tried to do in the past.
But with the right IT people, I've had great success in building the best products.
A great deal of UX knowledge and practises come from HCI studies, it has almost always been in the realm of IT. It's borders with service design is when it starts to pick up some concerns with identity, marketing, and a few others.
Design thinking was the big one years ago in trying to get alternative, yet profitable viewpoints in the boardroom. UX has done much better with this as it's much closer tied to the business lingo with things like conversion rate, A/B, etc.
Synopsis: Design agencies are disappearing. The industry of design has evolved from independent experimenters, to being a core skill of successful founders, and now established enterprises are investing in design talent. But, Human Centered Design has the potential to solve big problems, so that's why the author is starting a design firm in the social sector.
----
That's interesting, but I think there's another layer happening (admittedly outside the scope of this article). The very skill of design is becoming democratized, and that's bringing the era of the design studio to an end, while people who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are learning design, and applying those skills in their day-to-day jobs.
The design industry used to survive through the complexities of the craft. Pasting up layouts and setting type took more resources, training, and investment than most companies could reasonably take on themselves.
Now, the tools are so widely available, everyone is a "designer." If I say "Helvetica" or "Times New Roman," most people will have images pop into their heads of what those typefaces look like. That wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.
People who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are already learning design, and they're using those skills across all levels of all professions to create presentations, websites, etc..
Of course, there's much more to design than just being able to use the tools. There are visual communications components such as typography, colors, and shapes.
Many people think of design as something that someone is "just wired for," but it's a skill that can be learned, is being learned, and will increasingly be learned by more people – just so they can do their jobs better.
Source: I used to win fancy-pants design awards, but quit that to write a book called "Design for Hackers" (http://designforhackers.com ). I teach non-"designers" about design. I have doctors, scientists, business consultants, software developers – even a chef – taking my courses.
Design studios are not coming to an end anytime soon, no matter how well domain knowledge is packaged up and sold off as competency. We've given people better tools and guidelines to improve their day to day presentational communication skills, not "made them designers" – it's like saying that buying a new plug-and-play faucet for your shower and installing it yourself has made you a plumber, to use a cliche'd comparison. Years of study, work and research has made this a relatively simple thing to do, so let the layman handle it. Let them pick a style, it's a small job, who cares?
This production work is coming to an end, the value of a design agency in their years of experience working in the field in practises too many mention here is not being given the shoulder in favour of inexperienced word processors, unless it's Ralph from accounting making a so-so boilerplate christmas card for a law firm. When you want to reposition your firm as a leader in immigration rights cases and communicate that effectively, who you gonna call?
Classically trained designers and alums from design masters courses offer a skill set outside of basic production. Take a look the design maturity scale [0] to see what I'm taking about. Valued designers have moved on to (like the OP article mentioned) applying design principles and design viewpoints to affect structural, organisational, long-term change across a wide number of industries and social endeavours. Choosing a nice grotesque for your h1 is not on the same level as designing a conceptual poster to rouse the heartfelt concern for audiences you're trying to make take action on a social issue.
I'm sorry David, but for you to come here and ply you're wares of "Top 20 Typefaces To Use" and herald it as the downfall of the independent design industry is shortsighted, ignorant and quiet frankly insulting. You're marketing here, so by all means work away – but I'll not have that spiel stand un-countered, where design skills are the equivalent to a new swish suit some wall-street head is showing off to his friends, pointing out the finer details of his cuffs. Jesus wept. /rant
James, you may want to read my comment again. I said nothing about "the downfall of the independent design industry." Independent designers aren't going anywhere, but there will be far fewer of them.
David, I meant independent as in non-inhouse companies, which you do mention (design studies/consultancies). There will be less people who do production work, similar to how there are very few people tilling fields at the moment.
everyone can be a designer just like everyone can be a programmer :)
Problem is, learning to use a tool to accomplish a few low-barrier-to-entry tasks is a lot different than developing taste and practicing a craft. I don't think designers (or programmers) should fear much here.
A couple things I wish these types of articles would address :
1) the nuances around how the various employees of the design firm benefit when it is bought/merged.
2) the nuances of the people at the bigco leading the buying activity. Who are they, what are their motives and rewards? Are they former designers who know the value of design and its processes? Are they executives who have reached a level where the next career development item is "buy another company"?
Just like other mergers : will be interesting to see if the pendulum swings back in a couple years to see if new design firms are created ...and the cycle starts anew
16 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 50.6 ms ] thread> Take them in order: the article on China explains the joint report of the Commission on Extraterritoriality in China, presenting an exposition of the Powers' stand in the Chinese muddle. What it says is less important than what it is. It was "made public by the State Department to-day" with the purpose of presenting to the American public a picture of the State Department's position. Its source gives it authority, and the American public tends to accept and support the State Department view.
> The report of Dr. Pritchett, a trustee of the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, is an attempt to find the facts about this Jewish colony in the midst of a restless Arab world. When Dr. Pritchett's survey convinced him that in the long run Zionism would "bring more bitterness and more unhappiness both for the Jew and for the Arab," this point of view was broadcast with all the authority of the Carnegie Foundation, so that the public would hear and believe. The statement by the president of the Real Estate Board of New York, and Secretary Hoover's report, are similar attempts to influence the public toward an opinion.
> These examples are not given to create the impression that there is anything sinister about propaganda. They are set down rather to illustrate how conscious direction is given to events, and how the men behind these events influence public opinion.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~art/Temporary_SL/177/pdfs/Loos.pdf
One thing the author neglected to mention:
UX is becoming a function and domain of IT.
That's why you're seeing IBM hire UX people in drove, because IBM wants to make UX bigger part of its IT services offering.
And it makes sense. Whether you like it or not, IT can make or break success of UX.
I manage a small ux team in a fortune 50 and I've come to conclusion that it's basically impossible to instill design centric thinking to business and product owners on consistent basis, which is something that agencies have tried to do in the past.
But with the right IT people, I've had great success in building the best products.
my 2 cents.
Design thinking was the big one years ago in trying to get alternative, yet profitable viewpoints in the boardroom. UX has done much better with this as it's much closer tied to the business lingo with things like conversion rate, A/B, etc.
----
That's interesting, but I think there's another layer happening (admittedly outside the scope of this article). The very skill of design is becoming democratized, and that's bringing the era of the design studio to an end, while people who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are learning design, and applying those skills in their day-to-day jobs.
The design industry used to survive through the complexities of the craft. Pasting up layouts and setting type took more resources, training, and investment than most companies could reasonably take on themselves.
Now, the tools are so widely available, everyone is a "designer." If I say "Helvetica" or "Times New Roman," most people will have images pop into their heads of what those typefaces look like. That wouldn't have been the case 20 years ago.
People who wouldn't otherwise call themselves "designers" are already learning design, and they're using those skills across all levels of all professions to create presentations, websites, etc..
Of course, there's much more to design than just being able to use the tools. There are visual communications components such as typography, colors, and shapes.
Many people think of design as something that someone is "just wired for," but it's a skill that can be learned, is being learned, and will increasingly be learned by more people – just so they can do their jobs better.
Source: I used to win fancy-pants design awards, but quit that to write a book called "Design for Hackers" (http://designforhackers.com ). I teach non-"designers" about design. I have doctors, scientists, business consultants, software developers – even a chef – taking my courses.
This production work is coming to an end, the value of a design agency in their years of experience working in the field in practises too many mention here is not being given the shoulder in favour of inexperienced word processors, unless it's Ralph from accounting making a so-so boilerplate christmas card for a law firm. When you want to reposition your firm as a leader in immigration rights cases and communicate that effectively, who you gonna call?
Classically trained designers and alums from design masters courses offer a skill set outside of basic production. Take a look the design maturity scale [0] to see what I'm taking about. Valued designers have moved on to (like the OP article mentioned) applying design principles and design viewpoints to affect structural, organisational, long-term change across a wide number of industries and social endeavours. Choosing a nice grotesque for your h1 is not on the same level as designing a conceptual poster to rouse the heartfelt concern for audiences you're trying to make take action on a social issue.
I'm sorry David, but for you to come here and ply you're wares of "Top 20 Typefaces To Use" and herald it as the downfall of the independent design industry is shortsighted, ignorant and quiet frankly insulting. You're marketing here, so by all means work away – but I'll not have that spiel stand un-countered, where design skills are the equivalent to a new swish suit some wall-street head is showing off to his friends, pointing out the finer details of his cuffs. Jesus wept. /rant
[0] http://www.sjef.nu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/design_maturit...
1) the nuances around how the various employees of the design firm benefit when it is bought/merged.
2) the nuances of the people at the bigco leading the buying activity. Who are they, what are their motives and rewards? Are they former designers who know the value of design and its processes? Are they executives who have reached a level where the next career development item is "buy another company"?
Just like other mergers : will be interesting to see if the pendulum swings back in a couple years to see if new design firms are created ...and the cycle starts anew