Five long years ago, I wrote a piece entitled, "Return on Creative." The crux of that essay was that design was critical to business success and, naturally, that a clear understanding of business principles and a focus on creating value was critical to successful design.
This was part of marketing campaign that we were running in order to position Aquent as the company that "got" both business AND design, making us the perfect choice for any organization looking for increased efficiency from creative execution (as we often called it). Of course, it also jibed with the growing (and still prevalent) trend amongst AIGA-istas and DMI-ers to insist that design deserved a "place at the table" - that is, the table where important business decisions are made.
This "place at the table" thinking has been questioned by folks like Michael Bierut and, more recently, Dan Saffer. Bierut sees it as symptomatic of an insecurity complex and insists that designers should focus on being good at design, not business. Saffer says that designers need allies at the table, but should relish their place away from it as outsiders who can "speak truth to power." As high-falutin' as that may sound, Saffer rightly emphasizes that, place at the table or not, designers need to be able to explain their work and decisions in business terms.
When a client or manager asks about the return on investing in "good" design, she wants to translate it into the language of profit and loss. Paying designers is an expense that she must weigh against other expenses and justify in terms of relative profitability. How do YOU handle this question? How do you measure the impact of DESIGN? Do you?
Or is that, ultimately, the wrong question?
I believe (right or wrong) that form & function are inextricably tied to one another. Without the right design elements the CTA is completely lost. The design is absolutely part of the initial impression prior to the reader delving into your "engaging and relevant content". To be perfectly candid, I'm not sure how you measure the impact of the design. What I can tell you is that impact of a poor design or "the wrong design", while equally difficult to quatinfy emperically, can be devistating. I've worked with many premium brands like Sotheby's and trust me it matters- a lot.
I think you're right, not wrong, that form and function are tied together when it comes to graphic design (which separates it from something like fine art, in which function falls away).
Given this connectedness, I was wondering if I was asking the wrong question. Design, in isolation, cannot, and probably should not, be measured.
On the other hand, I was thinking that, were one going to measure the impact of design, you could use some kind of A/B testing, swapping in and out various design elements. Obviously, easier to do on the web....
Testing to me shows insecurity. You shouldn't have the audience dictate what things should look like, because then we would never be able to have any progress. Hence why design by committee and testing is a designers nightmare. You don't want to show them what they expect to see, or are used to seeing. You want to educate and open their eyes to new and better ways of doing things. And you will never be able to be everything for everyone, when you try to do that you lose all personality in a brand. Brands/design stand out because they are different than what people are used to. A/B testing and swapping design elements only shows that you have either no personality of your own and your letting everyone else dictate it, or some serious multiple personality issues. It shows strength in a brand/design when it makes a statement and sticks with it. Not when it keeps changing its mind.
Thanks for the comment, M!
I'm not advocating testing in order to find out what looks better to people, I'm advocating it in terms of uncovering what works better, what actually helps you achieve your goals more effectively. The web actually allows us to test assumptions about what works and what doesn't from a design perspective. I think we should take advantage of its potential in this regard so that discussion of design can move beyond differences of aesthetic opinion.
We're talking about creativity in a business context, so at some point it's going to come down to how functional the design is and how well it performs against business objectives. To justify the expense of your work to your client, you need to demonstrate that your design will serve their stated purposes. Testing alternatives is one way of doing that, as is designing based on studies of real "user" psychology and behavior.
For me, refusal (or even reluctance) to test, and thereby refusal to integrate design with business in an iterative manner, shows insecurity more prominently than testing per se. A designer rarely exists in a John Lilly isolation tank. This is the realm of the psychonaut, and at times the artist. Or, if s/he does require isolation, there is hopefully a Steve Jobs who has the key and knows the time to open, welcome back to the world and debrief. That said, A/B testing can be very shortsighted, nit-picky and costly, especially when it comes down to swapping design elements by committee within an already narrow(ed) and perhaps false paradigm. This approach comes close to the fallacy that ROI can be achieved through a scientific method, where there is a constant against which to measure tests. Consumers act more like sub-atomic particles than apples falling from trees at times, that is to say "irrationally" or "unpredictably." Designers' nightmares are only the trampled dreams of frustrated psychonauts and artists, and perhaps less nightmarish than what happens to scripts cashed in by screenwriters by the time they reach a finished Hollywood product. All this sound and fury exist within, for lack of a better term, a "belief system" of lack and work environments that are high on stress and low on inspiration. Inspired designer, meet inspired marketer in an atmosphere of prosperity consciousness. Otherwise, you will get ROF - return on fear, which is failure.
That is the most interesting and articulate comment I have ever received. Also, the only one, thus far, to employ the word "psychonaut."
Thanks.