ASAC 1998 Conference
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

Ryan W. Townend (student)
Barbara J. Phillips
College of Commerce
University of Saskatchewan

This study uses in-depth interviews with Canadian logo designers to provide insight into the logo design process and to judge the applicability and usefulness of theoretical marketing rules regarding good logo design.  Guidelines to facilitate the logo design process are developed for marketing managers.

Introduction

A logo, defined as a distinctive mark that identifies a product, company, or brand (Wells et al., 1995), is a company’s signature to the world.  Logos distinguish one company from another (Durgee and Stuart, 1987) and assure consumers of a consistent standard of quality (Olins, 1990).  Most importantly, a good logo, such as Nike’s swoosh, builds brand identification and brand equity (Biel, 1992), all within a space no larger than a postage stamp.

Logo designers are charged with distilling the essence of a corporation into a few simple shapes and lines.  Marketing research has attempted to standardize this task by creating lists of “good” logo design elements (e.g., Berger, 1984; Henderson and Cote, 1995).    However, the applicability of these rules to the creation of effective logos by actual logo designers has not been examined.   Can one create an effective logo by consciously combining previously identified design elements?  How do designers really create logos?  This study uses in-depth interviews with Canadian logo designers to answer these questions and suggests ways for managers to facilitate the logo design process.

Conceptual Framework

The creation of a logo starts with a definition of the task and ends with client acceptance.  Rosen (1970) and others (e.g., Pilditch, 1970) have identified the steps of the logo design process.  The most important of these steps is the development of an understanding of a company and the meanings it wishes to convey to its publics.  Creating a logo from these meanings hinges on matching the company with an image such that the image is strongly and positively connected to the company in the minds of consumers (Berger, 1984).  For example, the Royal Bank of Canada wanted to create a new logo that represented its strong past as well as emphasizing its ability to cope with change.  The result is the familiar British lion, crown and globe; this logo has the wood-carved feel of history, but is positively perceived by customers as contemporary (Rosen, 1970).

How do designers make the leap from meaning to logo?  Many authors have identified the elements of good logo design from existing logos, and most agree on the following six elements, taken from Berger (1984) and Henderson and Cote (1995):  (a) colour, (b) size, (c) contrast, (d) simplicity, (e) symmetry, and (f) naturalness.  These elements are briefly defined below.

Colour is used in a logo to evoke consumers’ associations and emotions.  For example, IBM uses the colour blue so exclusively that the company is called Big Blue (Wells et al., 1995).  This colour suggests conservatism and corporate control.  The meanings of colours are generally culture-specific, however, and therefore may not transfer well in cross-cultural settings.  For example, black is the colour of mourning in Western countries, while white serves this function in some Eastern countries.

Size and Contrast help to determine the relationship between and importance of the parts of a logo.  A logo can consist of a name, an image, or both.  Through size and contrast, one of these parts can be emphasized more than the other.  In addition, size and contrast help to attract attention, such as the large red and yellow Dole sun logo found at the top of Dole canned fruit.

The Simplicity of a logo includes three interrelated factors: elaborateness, action, and depth (Henderson and Cote, 1995).  Research has shown that simple designs are recognized and remembered more easily than elaborate designs (Henderson and Cote, 1996).  However, simple logos may seem boring to consumers; active logos (i.e., those that show movement) add interest.  An example of an active logo is CN’s flowing “track” of initials.  In addition, logos with depth (i.e., shading) add realism, and are more positively evaluated than flat designs.  Therefore, an ideal logo would be simple, with action and depth.

Symmetry is the balance of a logo’s elements on each side of the vertical and horizontal axes.  Symmetry results in a more positively evaluated logo and more accurate recognition (Henderson and Cote, 1995).  An example of a symmetrical logo is Scotiabank’s S-globe.

Finally, Natural logos are ones that are representative, organic, and round (Henderson and Cote, 1995).  That is, they represent an object that exits and use organic shapes, such as those found in nature.  Round logos are natural and graceful, and also convey action and symmetry, as stressed above.  An example of a natural logo is the logo for Air Canada, depicting a leaf in a round border.

These six elements have been identified from existing, positively-evaluated logos.  They often are presented as the “rules” of good logo design.  However, it is unclear whether they can help designers and managers create effective logos.  This study is the first to ask Canadian designers how they create logos, and to evaluate logo design rules for applicability and usefulness.

Method

In-depth interviews with nine Canadian logo designers were conducted.  Seven men and two women who design logos as part of their regular work assignments were interviewed individually at their offices.  Each interview lasted approximately one hour.  The designers ranged in age from 25 to 50, and had between 5 and 25 years of design experience.  Seven of the designers had some formal design-school training.

Informants were asked open-ended questions about how they design logos.  Topics included methods of gathering information about a company’s meanings, the design process, and the rules for effective logo design.  Next, informants were presented with the six elements of good logo design identified in previous marketing research and asked if they used or could use these elements to design logos.

Taped interviews were transcribed and coded using the grounded theory method advocated by Strauss and Corbin (1990).  Interviews were analyzed independently by each author for common themes, and differences were resolved through discussion.  The theoretical rules of good logo design were compared to actual practice in order to evaluate the existing list of logo design rules.

Results and Discussion

The informant interviews centred on three areas of logo creation:  design philosophies, the design process, and the rules of good logo design.  The findings and the managerial implications of each area are discussed below.

Design Philosophies

The designers’ implicit philosophies focused on four areas: decision-making, ownership, continuity, and recognition.  Opinions in each of these areas reflected a continuum of differing philosophies with a few designers at each extreme and several in the middle.  The first philosophy, decision-making, concerns how the decisions that are part of  the logo design process are made.  This continuum can best be expressed by the end-points: art versus business.  That is, some designers feel that logos are best designed using artistic skills and talent.  In this case, decisions are made through an individual and intuitive process.  For example, one designer expressed this view by stating:

“It is all art.  Trying to find ways to incorporate meaning… it’s artistic.  I can’t tell you how to paint or draw.  It comes from within.”

Other designers feel logo design is a business activity that can be approached using analytical problem solving.  In this case, the applications and limitations of the logo are of utmost importance, and logo design decisions can be made in meetings between designers or the designer and the client.  This view is expressed by the following informant:

“Design is an intellectual pursuit; it’s an analytical thing.  Being artistic doesn’t make you a designer.  It’s applying creative solutions via the thought process.  What does your client have to do with art?  Nothing.  They have to do with business.”

The implication of this philosophical continuum for managers depends on a company’s comfort level regarding the transparency of the design process.  All informants, regardless of philosophy, stated that they have produced effective logos.  However, a manager who wishes to be informed of the foundation for each logo design decision would do well to find a designer who uses an analytical problem-solving approach.  A manager who wants the designer to present him or her with a finished logo may employ one who favours artistic decision-making.  In either case, a first step when hiring logo designers is to question them regarding their preferred decision-making style to ensure that it is compatible with company needs.

The second philosophy expressed by designers was that of ownership, bounded by the endpoints of client versus designer ownership.  Several designers state that because the client pays for the logo, the client’s wishes regarding logo design have to be respected.  This philosophy leads these designers to acquiesce to a logo design that would not be their personal choice.  These designers feel that to create an effective logo for their client, they must remove their own personal preferences and opinions.  For example, one informant expressed his client-ownership philosophy in this way:

“One of the biggest complements, personally, is when someone says, “You did that?  I never would have guessed.”  In my mind, my customer is in the front line and I’m behind the scenes.”

On the other hand, other designers feel that they own their work.  This philosophy stems from the feeling that a designer’s personal preferences, history, and experiences all help to make a strong and unique logo.  Therefore, these designers will not compromise when a client demands logo changes.  However, most designers’ philosophies were reflected by the middle of this continuum.  These designers feel they are the best judges of design elements, but will work with a client to meet reasonable requests.  As one informant said:

“If the client has some childhood trauma with crayons, they are not going to use crayons in their logo.”

Again, managers must determine a designer’s ownership philosophy at the outset of the logo design process.  If the company has a strong, preconceived notion of specific logo design elements, a designer with a client-ownership philosophy may be required for a successful working relationship.

The third philosophy, continuity, concerns the longevity of the logo design and is bounded by the end-points: timeless versus trendy.  All designers acknowledge that brand equity only can be built by a logo over time as the logo becomes well-known.  However, some designers favour trendy logos that match the style of the times, while others strive for a timeless logo that can be used for many years to come.  Both acknowledge that a trendy logo is more suitable for fashion-conscious or youth-oriented products.  In addition, designers admit that a timeless logo is difficult to achieve, but can stem from good logo design.

Managers must decide how trendy or timeless their logo should be, based on company products, markets, and needs.  This decision should be communicated to the logo designer to ensure that the resulting logo meets company objectives.  In addition, this philosophy highlights the fact that managers should not rush to evaluate the success of a new logo; building brand equity takes time.

The final philosophy expressed by informants deals with customer recognition of the logo, and can be expressed as:  exposure versus design.  Many designers state that an effective logo can be created through audience exposure to the logo.  That is, the logo design is secondary to the level of exposure in determining logo effectiveness.  This philosophy is expressed by the following informant:

“You could have a really ugly logo and yet the company has used it for fifty years and everyone knows it.  That is not a bad logo.”

Other designers oppose this view.  For example:

“Just because people recognize it [the logo], it may not appeal to them.  You are pushing on a rope.  If you took two companies and one was focus-tested as ugly and one was focus-tested as having a lot of appeal, and you spent the same amount of money… the same amount of exposure… and in the end tracked the sales from the product, the one that looked nicer will sell better and attract more people.”

Under this philosophy, well-designed logos are more likely to be perceived as effective.

This philosophy highlights a manager’s responsibility to convey a logo’s exposure strategy and budget to the logo designer at the outset of the project.  Especially for managers with limited budgets, a designer who believes design is more important than the level of exposure may work harder to develop an outstanding logo.

Design Process

All informants stated that they need as much information as possible to understand the company before they can create an effective logo.  The information required includes standard factors such as the company mission statement, annual reports, product descriptions, competitive analysis, the target audience, and existing logos.  However, designers also value insight into the corporate culture and cultural constraints, a diagram of the facility layout, and a description of the CEO and other key staff.  In addition, designers wished to hear the company’s dreams for its future.

Beyond paper descriptions, designers would like to gather information through interviewing key personnel, touring the plants or offices, and trying the products.  All avenues are used to understand the company, as expressed by this informant:

“Seeing the client walk out of the board room you have a feel of what the person is like by the way they carry themselves, by the way they talk, by the way they dress.”

The actual design process begins with a pencil and paper, and an open mind.  Most designers state that they do not use a computer to begin, because they feel that a computer might control the design instead of encouraging it.  If the design does not come easily, informants leave the project to incubate for a day or two, or try to jumpstart the creative process by associating symbols with descriptions of the company.  Designers develop 3 to 50 thumbnail sketches of logo ideas and may share these with colleagues or the client, depending on their design philosophies.

The managerial implications of informants’ descriptions of the design process centre on providing information and time.  To create an effective logo, designers need information from many sources and through many different channels.  In addition, designers need time to digest the information, with some slack time allowed for incubation or consultation with other designers and the client.

The Rules

When presented with the six elements of good logo design identified by previous research, most informants agreed that they are or could be important.  However, designers were divided regarding the usefulness of the elements in creating effective logos.  Each of the six elements is discussed below.

Informants perceive Colour as crucial to good logo design, and affirm that colour can be predetermined before logo development.  Many designers have idiosyncratic codes regarding colour use.  For example, red is used for food logos, while blue is used to convey stability and reassurance.  Gold is used for “money” logos, and green for agricultural logos.  Designers also identify colour as culture-specific; therefore, its use depends on target market perceptions.  In addition, informants note that colours can become outdated just like any other design element.  For example, hot pink was mentioned as an “eighties” colour, while tans are more acceptable in the nineties.  This can lead to problems for designers who are hoping to achieve a timeless logo.

The designers in this study accept Size and Contrast as important design elements as well because they give designers the ability to control where consumers look first.  However, these elements cannot be set in advance, given that they arise from the relationships between the parts of the finished logo.

All designers agree that Simplicity is the hallmark of a good logo.  One designer noted:

“Please tell me one elaborate logo that you can remember.  Fed Ex is a good example; there isn’t a single element that you could take away from the design.”

The informants said they attempt to create simple logos.  However, most felt that the logo elements of activity and depth are company-specific.  That is, designers do not try to incorporate these elements just because the elements are supposed to be more highly-evaluated by consumers; instead, they will use these elements if they help to convey a company’s meanings.

A few of the designers interviewed follow the Swiss school of design, where logo designs are simple, angular, and set on a grid pattern.  These designers favour logos with symmetry.  Most informants, however, disagree.  They feel that symmetry does not translate into effectiveness, and do not seek to create symmetrical logos.  Instead, they allow symmetrical logos as they surface during the design process.

Informants are the most divided over the design element of naturalness.  Most designers think abstract logos can be effective, although representative logos may gain equity more quickly:

“Abstract logos – you build equity over time.   It takes longer to acquire the same value than if you were to use representative logos.  It takes people longer to clue in.  That is in no way a value judgment on its effectiveness as a logo.”

The organic aspect of natural logos is thought to be valuable only to clients with organic aspects to their business.  A designer questioned the superiority of organic logos by stating that his daughter would recognize a computer faster than she would recognize a maple leaf.  In addition, designers agree that shape is the result of a designer’s or client’s preference, or chance.  Designers do not attempt to incorporate circles in their logos.

In general, informants have serious reservations about their ability to create an effective logo based on the six elements of good logo design.  Those with an artistic decision-making philosophy reject outright the idea of following design rules.  Others feel that it could be done, but the resulting logo would be suboptimal:

“It would be like going to Vegas and betting little amounts here and there, winning and losing a little.  You will not win big, though.  What this will limit you from is getting the big score and getting the logo that captures everyone’s attention.”

In addition, informants state that the listed design elements overlook one very important factor of good logo design:  a consideration of usage.  Designers need to know the situations and limitations that the logo will face now and in the future.  Many of the six design elements are affected by usage.  For example, certain colours, such as red and blue together, are difficult to use on television because they vibrate.  Usage affects logo design because of size as well; logos must be pleasing even when they are shown in a large format, such as on a billboard, or in a small space, such as on letterhead.  Contrast is important if logos will be reproduced through a photocopier or fax.  In addition, elaborate designs are expensive if the logo will be sewn onto uniforms.  All of the informants mentioned usage as an important consideration for effective logo design.

Based on informants’ responses to the “rules” of good logo design, guidelines for managers can be created.  First, managers should discuss usage contexts with the logo designer, given that this factor may affect size, contrast, and colour considerations.  Designers generally accept that a logo’s colour can be set by the client in advance, but are less likely to agree to other preset parameters such as activity, depth, symmetry, or naturalness.  Depending on the designer’s philosophy, it may be better to discuss these elements after the logo has been created, or when choosing between logo options.

Conclusion

In-depth interviews with Canadian logo designers have provided insight into the logo design process and suggestions for managing logo creation.  First, managers should communicate with designers beyond the parameters of the project, to understand the designers’ philosophies regarding decision-making, ownership, continuity, and recognition.  This initial communication will help ensure that a designer’s philosophies are compatible with the company’s objectives and processes.  Next, managers can facilitate the logo design process by providing descriptive and experiential information regarding all aspects of the company, and providing a reasonable length of time to designers to complete the logo design tasks.  In addition, managers should describe the logo usage context to highlight logo needs and limitations.  Finally, managers can ensure the effectiveness of the finished logo by using the six elements of good logo design identified by prior research to discuss the designer’s final choice of logo elements.  The logo’s actual effect on brand equity should be evaluated only after it has had time to become recognized by the target audience.

References

Berger, Arthur Asa, Sign in Contemporary Culture: An Introduction to Semiotics,
New York, New York: Longman, 1984.

Biel, Alexander L., “How Brand Image Drives Brand Equity,” Journal of Advertising Research,
32 (November 1992), RC6-RC12.

Durgee, Jeffrey F., and Stuart, Robert W., “Advertising Symbols and Brand Names That Best
Represent Key Product Meanings,” Journal of Consumer Marketing, 4 (Summer 1987), 15-24.

Henderson, Pamela W., and Cote, Joseph A., “Designing Positively Evaluated Logos,”
Unpublished working paper (under review), Washington State University, 1995.

Henderson, Pamela W., and Cote, Joseph A., “Designing Recognizable Logos,” Unpublished
working paper (under review), Washington State University, 1996.

Olins, Wally, Corporate Identity: Making Business Strategy Visible Through Design, Boston,
Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press, 1990.

Pilditch, James, Communication by Design: A Study in Corporate Identity, London, UK:
McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, 1970.

Rosen, Ben, The Corporate Search for Visual Identity: A Study of 15 Outstanding Corporate
Design Programs, New York, New York: Van Nostand Reinhold Co., 1970.

Strauss, Anselm, and Corbin, Juliet, Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory
Procedures and Techniques, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, 1990.

Wells, William, Burnett, John, and Moriarty, Sandra, Advertising Principles and Practice, third
edition, New Jersey, New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1995.

My journey from Manitoba began with a treacherous eleven-hour drive. I left the snow banks in my rear view mirror, survived off of energy drinks to keep me awake through the boring Saskatchewan landscape (no offence to my colleagues Amy and Matt in our Saskatoon office!), and made it into warm and sunny Alberta. With the air conditioning on and Google maps leading me down some sketchy back roads, I made it to Calgary!

It’s only half way through my first week at William Joseph’s offices in downtown Calgary, and I’m already being told to write this blog. My name is Caitlin (a.k.a. Catalina, Cali, Cailtin, Cailin), and I’m the new creative department intern at William Joseph’s Calgary office for the next two months. Initial confusion over the spelling of my name aside, I was welcomed into the office with many laughs and some hilarious desktop backgrounds on my computer.

So far the entire WJ team has been incredibly welcoming and friendly. I’ve already been introduced to the office’s collection of terrible CDs only to spend the morning reliving Backstreet Boys memories between bits of crazy complicated server config talk from the developers.  Upon flipping through the huge selection of resource books available, the designer in me fell in love with paper samples and Pantone colour swatches. I was also introduced to Kris’ massive library of fonts. Over 20,000 typefaces at my disposal – a typography lover’s dream!

I cannot wait to get working on some projects with the team to see more of what they do day-to-day. As a student who spent the past five years in school refining what I wanted to do with my life, it’s incredibly rewarding to be sitting at a desk at an agency surrounded by some amazing like-minded people. I got a feeling I will definitely enjoy my time here!

I’ve always been known as a curious person but I found it even happened to me. Only recently had I realized I’d never thought of things so fundamental as, “What is gravity?” I mean, I know what it does. I know what happens when I drop a watermelon off a roof. (I plead the fifth on that by the way.) But what is it REALLY? Which lead to other questions like, “Why does mass have gravitational pull in the first place?” And most importantly, “Why is it so weak compared to all the other forces?” But I digress. This post isn’t really about science. It’s more about the concept of questioning and why it’s so important to our daily lives.

Does it really make that big of a difference?
Isidor Isaac Rabi, the Nobel Laureate in Physics said that every mother on his block would ask their child upon coming home from school, “So, did you learn anything new today?” But not his mother. She always asked him a different question. “Izzy,” she would say, “did you ask a good QUESTION today?” He said that tiny difference became the catalyst in making him more curious about his world and made him one of the leading minds of his time.

Do questions give us more than answers?
It comes down to a simple fact. Answers are finite. They are important, but not as important as asking for them in the first place. Starting with a question makes you see the world and those within it as an asset. Asking, is what makes us human – the less hairy of the apes – if you don’t count Jason, our Creative Director that is. For as long as humans have been communicating with the Great Apes by using sign language (approximately 50 years), they have NEVER once asked US a question. Here they sit, communicating with another species! A species that clearly demonstrates a wealth of knowledge they do not possess, and they have never once been curious to know what’s going on in our heads. Joseph Jordania in his paper, “Who asked the First Question.” explains this by saying, they lack a fundamental “Theory of Mind.” Which essentially boils down to them not realizing, others separate from them, possess separate minds as well as separate information. As humans, modern life has trained many of us out of this birthright. Asking questions from those who know something we do not, is how we progress. It’s how we succeed both individually, and as a species. It gives us possibilities that having just the answers, does not.

Does it work in business too?
At William Joseph I recently posed a challenge to our staff. I wanted us to think differently. I wanted us to “Cultivate a Culture of Curiosity.” Businesses act much the same way that schools do. Answers are usually praised much more than questions. With time crunches and money on the line, people tend to narrow their vision to just the finish line, while missing out on better options just outside their field of view. Whether you’re a creative firm or even a financial company, asking questions makes a big difference to your bottom line. We all know very well how the financial industry could have used more questions than answers before the 2008 crash. But what about a creative firm? What kind of a question, if you only had one to ask, would be best? Something aspirational perhaps. Something that would encourage a person to challenge their status quo. Something that made them think differently.

HOW did I CHANGE the world today?
This is the question I want everyone in our office to ask themselves. Whether it be after receiving an email from a client, or writing a strategy, or designing a campaign from scratch. By asking this simple question, it allows for better answers. Better answers that will make better work. No matter how good we are, we can always do better, and this is just one more way we can put ourselves in the position to achieve this goal.

Start today, be human, stay curious, and ask a GOOD question. You never know where it will take you.

Working in Canada has been an immensely uplifting experience.  Nowhere have I been exposed to the beautiful diversity of people in workplaces than here.  I have worked with women and men from across the globe with a depth of experience and perspectives that have enriched my professional and personal life.  Collaborating with team members representing a variety of cultural, lifestyle, and gender perspectives has improved my work and the work of our agency for our clients.  Quite frankly, I think I had started to take this diversity for granted until I read AdAge’s Who to Watch in Adland in 2013 and discovered a top ten list comprised entirely of older, white men.   (Apologies to Alex Bogusky, who seems to be the only “not old” dude on the list)  I was, quite literally, taken aback by the notion that a national publication with the size and reputation of AdAge could not come up with a single woman or person of colour to include on their list.  Business Insider came up with a list of 30 of The Most Powerful Women in Advertising only three months prior to AdAge’s list.  In 3 months, none of these women were worth a nod in 2013?  Hell, all of the women on Business Insider’s list were actually in advertising – only 7 of the men in the AdAge article were!But it was also in this article where I came upon another rather startling statistic – only 3% of Creative Directors in the US are female, and females are far underrepresented in upper management in the ad world.  Part of the reason for this is thought to be that women in the States tend to “lifestyle out” of the advertising world to start and/or raise families just as they are getting into a position to become senior staff.  Perhaps this is why no similar data could be found for Canada, which provides families with more viable options for family leave when starting a family.  I know many women in the advertising and PR industries in Canada, as well as many female marketing professionals, from many cultures and backgrounds.

This 3% statistic lead to the creation of The 3% Conference in San Francisco to build the case for more senior female involvement in the creative industry in the States.   The most compelling reason for greater female representation in advertising is not actually a gender issue at all, it`s a business one.

In the States, and I am sure that Canada does not differ dramatically in this regard, women control upwards of 80% of consumer spending.  In the States, this represents $4.3 TRILLION. At the same time, The 3% Conference organizers claim on their website that women report “overwhelming dissatisfaction with the ways advertisers market to them.  The humor is off. Or the ad’s premise is irrelevant. In some cases, the entire message is not only irrelevant, but insulting”.  Does anyone recognize the recent BIC Cristal for Her ad scandal in these words? Read here for some of the public’s reaction to this gem of a business idea…

Will Burns of Forbes.com speaks further to this issue, in that eliminating the female perspective, and I will extend it to the multicultural perspective, is an injustice to the creative process itself.  In his company as in our own, collaboration and integration of our team members is one of our core values – it means that we work as a team, with all our varied perspectives to make our clients’ work stronger and more appealing.  The utmost respect for the process and the validity of the idea in our firm, the passion to improve the idea by the team, regardless of the idea’s creator, leads to a work environment refreshingly ego free and keeps our clients’ best interest at heart.

What do you think?  We want to know what you think about the status of advertising in Canada.  Does it reflect the attitudes and opinions of our multicultural society?   Are you an advertising professional in Canada and do you see the same problems here?

For the business, it seems like there’s no downside. You get a huge mass of hungry designers to create work and compete with each other and even though they all did the work, you only have to pay one of them. Even the cost of posting a listing online is virtually free in most cases. So why hasn’t this caught on in a big way?

The answer is simple. It doesn’t work.

“Dart Practice in the Dark”

When a hundred designers clammer to do work for free it’s spec work on steroids. In an earlier article, we broke down 10 reasons why spec work is bad for your business. Without a proper partnership, designs can be merged from many others without proper compensation for those people’s hard work. Not to mention, the final product is usually shallow and lacks proper long-term strategy or adheres to a marketing plan of any substance. This is mostly because the crowd of designers are at best, making only educated guesses of what you might like, which is a lot like throwing darts at a board. They are simply taking shots in the dark when it comes to your identity.

“Invested in Perpetuity vs. Investment in Singularity”

There is a reason agencies do this as part of their process – because it is effective. Agencies are invested in your business because when you make profits, you are more likely to continue to spend with them again. An anonymous designer has no such investment. The kind of designer that would participate in such a practice, is most likely only in it for the pay cheque.

“The Unexpected Cost”

The expenses you think you’re saving evaporate faster than you could imagine when you factor in things like curating the hundreds of designs, managing the ones you like, communicating back and forth and going through tons of revisions because the designer has no real relationship with you and so on. The timelines get blown to smithereens and you find yourself without anything to show for your efforts. The only thing that is left to do is to start from scratch with an agency, but this time with less budget because you spent much of your budget on wasted efforts.

“Story Time”

I recently worked with a large client who had tried this model for a logo design. They were in their third year of this project which that had turned into a nightmare. They had a stack of paper 3 inches thick and nothing was coming close to what they wanted. Three years of working with designers. Three years of being disappointed and frustrated. Three years of man hours for the people handling this project. The farther they got, the more they felt they had to keep going to justify their investment. Finally it was time to come to terms with the reality that it wasn’t ever going to produce what they wanted. It was time to call a real agency.

We spoke with them and asked them questions they never thought of. We met them face to face and toured their facility. We had researched their company and their competition, but most importantly, we got to know them. This face to face interaction was priceless. It gave us insight into who this client really was. My team and I then drafted a creative brief in our own words the information that outlined in finer detail, what they truly wanted and more importantly, what they needed.

The result was with the proper preparation, process, and collaboration, the options we gave them were right on the mark. What they had been through those past three years and what we provided them was night vs. day.  Instead of hundreds of logos that missed the mark time and time again, they had three strong logos that they loved almost equally. The biggest problem they had was now which logo to pick.That’s what I call a “High Quality Problem.”

1. It reduces design to an arbitrary “hit or miss” game among competing agencies.

2. The spec client receives really comfortable, safe work. The spec creative process creates an incentive to please you first and your audience second.

3. A spec campaign is typically developed with only the most dangerous input: preconceived notions, biases and personal experience of the team creating the work.

4. It goes against the fundamental principle of design – using a client brief as the basis for translating the message into a visual format. Without the proper consultation and research phases, designers work in a ‘vacuum’. And as we all know, nothing can live in a vacuum.

5. Spec work has hidden costs. Design agencies have overhead. The time spent on spec work cannot be resold to other clients, therefore it’s lost time and capital. Even if the work is picked, the client usually ends up paying more for the project over the life of the process to recoup the costs of developing the original spec work.

6. Spec clients are often left with mediocre work.

7. It hardly ever gets to market. This alone indicates that it’s a false yardstick.

8. It undermines and devalues the professional designer’s education, experience, hard work and more importantly, the entire design industry.

9. Without a proper partnership, designs can be shallow and lack proper long-term strategy that adhere to a marketing plan.

10. Lastly, there are ethical concerns. Nothing stops a client from taking free spec work, handing it over to their nephew and asking them to recreate it “with a few slight modifications”.

One of the best stories I have heard concerning spec work and an agency was when a prospect who owned a world-wide chain of high-end hotels wanted a fellow design colleague to do a complete spec identity for his business, they replied, “Okay. But our team needs to stay in at least three of your hotels in different countries before we decide if we’ll do the spec work. If we like the experience, then we’ll do it. If not, then we’ll pass.” The prospect said, “But we don’t give away nights at our hotels for free.” He then paused and said, “Point taken.”

A professional graphic designer is a business partner, seeing projects from the planning, concept development and budgeting stages, through to production, quality control and the finished product. Spec work does not allow for this collaboration. As creatives, all we have is our ideas. And when we give them away for free, they become a commodity – a devalued one at that.

So hopefully the next time the word spec comes up, you’ll see it as a four letter word.

After a few months of the team  investigating, researching, calculating and consulting with each other Tim and I get called into the INITIAL PRESENTATION MEETING.  We are nervous!   What are they going to tell us?  Have we been doing the right things to achieve our goals?  How much is this going to cost??  After breaking into the presentation with a few comfort slides, the hard hitting facts start to hit.  Then key insights arrive that make us bend our thinking.  I look at Tim.  He looks back. I am not sure if we are thinking the same thing but overall, we keep quiet and listen.  I try to keep an open mind even though sometimes my instinct is to disagree.  I keep remembering – these are the experts that we hired.  They work on all our clients’ most important business and we trust them to do that.  They hold our business close to their hearts too – BUT WHAT ARE THEY THINKING!!

We leave the meeting.

That night the presentation and document is running through my mind.  Yup, they had some good points there.  Hmm… that new approach has merit.  What value would that initiative really bring to our agency???

We regroup to discuss the presentation and after having some time to digest we come to agreements. Some points Tim and I push hard and our team defends.  But overall, the plan going forward is approved.  Now what is this going to cost.  Yet again Tim and I brace ourselves and then proposed budget number drops.  Its definitely more expensive than we thought, but we’ve already bought into the strategy and the creative concept and we agree on the results that it’s supposed to bring.  I think back to my first house not costing as much as they want me to spend in marketing this year.  ARE YOU SERIOUS!!!  But then again logic kicks back in. Three markets (now four) x 12 months = logical spending.  Wow, how such a large number can seem so overwhelming but yet make perfect sense.  It fits the ratio of expenditures vs sales.  It achieves our goals.  It makes us look like international rock stars.

GAME ON.

Now the lessons to be learned from this blog: we at William Joseph have to spend on marketing like everyone else and even though we do this daily, as business owners, we still go through the same emotions as our clients.  It can be scary to let a marketing team dig around in your business.  It is nerve-racking hearing someone critique your baby, your effort, your hard work.  It can be surprising to hear the cost of the solution, but necessary to remember that marketing is NOT an expense, it’s an investment in your future…  But overall, it can be really exciting to see the business returns that come with international rock star status!

Over the past few months we’ve welcomed some new clients to our agency, including Desjardins Financial Services, McLean & Partners Private Wealth Management, Tourism Saskatoon, Spectrum HR Law, Pacific Western Corporate Group, Soundwave Hearing Care and WAM Development Group.  Each have brought us unique and interesting projects that we cannot wait to bring to market.

As of this week, we’re pleased to announce two new staff members to our team, Sheri Lunde, our new Account Manager for Calgary, and Terrin Kaminsky, our new Graphic Designer.  Sadly we’re also saying goodbye to a long term employee, Liz Balletto, who is moving out East to be closer to family and friends.  We will miss her tremendously.

We’ve also opened a new location in Edmonton at the beginning of July and are looking for an Account Manager and New Business Developer.  You can find our job posting on LinkedIn if this sounds like an interesting job opportunity.

It hasn’t been all new business though- we recently finished Sunridge Mall’s fall campaign.  This campaign took on a new direction for the mall’s visual advertising treatment and we are so pleased with the results.  Look for it in market in the coming weeks in outdoor and on the radio.

We’ve also been busy with Tourism Saskatoon, producing television and radio spots, among other projects to promote their sports and conventions departments. Our television spot for the fall takes a humourous look at the rivalry between Regina and Saskatoon and all the “excuses” that folks from Regina find to visit Saskatoon…Don’t worry, your secret is safe with us.

Jump.ca came to us for more radio spots to support their fall campaign.  These guys are so great to work with and we always have fun working up the creative.

Junior Achievement of Saskatchewan is getting the finishing touches put on their recruitment campaign materials.  Their project to promote volunteerism with JA amongst business leaders in Saskatchewan won them our Brand Aid grant.

Saskatchewan Foster Families Association launched their new website this week and we couldn’t be more pleased with the results.  Visit them at www.sffa.sk.ca.

Big Rock Brewery has embarked on a new email marketing effort that we’ve been working on, among some other very top secret projects.  Just wait until the fall!

It’s been quite a summer and we’re gearing up for fall.  Look for a return to our regular programming on the blog come September.  Until then, enjoy the rest of the summer!

-the WJ team

Upon further reflection anxiety began to set in. I have no problem walking into a boardroom full of executives, marketing directors and creative types and pitching a design concept, campaign, brand identity or whatever other corporate collateral ones business may require, but the daunting task of entering a room of 10–12 year olds was frightening. Is it possible to capture a 5^th graders attention for 3 hours, how does someone captivate an 11 year old on the topic of design, is it possible to back out of this? Call in sick? Reschedule or send a replacement? I figured the best way to tackle this assignment was to show examples of what inspired me to do what I do, if I could talk passionately about design maybe just maybe I could inspire their young minds to possibly go down the same road I traveled.

Some of my fondest memories of my time in school were those spent in art class, having the opportunity to visualize my uncorrupted imagination and using the mediums at hand to communicate my ideas visually, spending hours painting drawing and sculpting anything that popped into my head. One of the most beautiful things about being a kid in art class is the freedom and the lack of fear to do as you please. How I wish I could go back to those days.

Back to the task at hand, as I began to deal with the fear of standing in front a class room full of prepubescent kids, I remembered the words of my little brother, “ Can you please wear a T-shirt so all my friends can see your tattoo’s” I figured this would at least capture their attention long enough (as well as give me some playground street cred) to get through the introduction to my presentation. The structure of this presentation would be key to me surviving this afternoon. What are kids this age interested in? And how does that apply to art and design. Lets break it down. Because I’m technically still a kid at heart I tried to think of thing that attracted me to design and how it might apply to these little humans. I looked in to areas like video games, character design, architecture, industrial design, fashion, branding etc. I wanted to show the class how far reaching art and design can be, and how things that they see every day are touched by design. I was even able to throw in some art history and still captivate their attention, with the help of artists like Keith haring, Andy Warhol, Roy Lichtenstein, Milton Glasser, Frank Lloyd Wright, Frank Gehry, Gaudi and even an appearance from the Bauhaus I was able to give these kids their first introduction into the world of design to their eagerly awaiting eyes. Surprisingly these kids were hanging on my every word, it was amazing. Looking back on it I think I may have even changed a couple career paths transforming future doctors and lawyers in to starving artist, illustrators and designer, welcome to the dark side my little friends, your parents will be proud.

For the second part of the afternoon I wanted to give the kids a little taste of what its like to be a designer. So I tasked them with a little project. I challenged them to come up with there own brand and company name possibly a tag line if they felt so inclined. Once the concept had passed the teacher and my approval, they were given templates to see their logos and branding in application. These templates included Hoodies, T-shirts, shoes, snowboards and Skateboard. It was absolutely amazing to see their little minds spill out on to the paper, with no restriction the class produced some fantastic results, these kids were naturals. Check out some of the results below:

In retrospect this was one of the most rewarding days I’ve had as a designer. It made me remember how great my job really is and how fun it can be. I think sometimes we take what we do for granted and don’t realize how impactful the things we create truly are. I’m hoping to make this field trip and annual thing. Hopefully I was able to at least plant a seed in a couple of the students in the class and show them the possibilities at their fingertip. Who knows maybe one of those kids grows up to be the next super star. Look out world I’m changing design one small mind at a time.

Afterwards we got a chance to sit in on a meeting with a potential new client and the CEO Ryan Townend. I have to say this was the highlight of my day getting a chance to see Ryan work his charismatic charm! And the only thought I had afterwards was, that if more businesses had the chance to listen to Ryan, they would understand the importance of a good marketing campaign and how beneficial it is for a company’s bottom line. It was really a great experience getting a chance to see how everyone at William Joseph is so incredibly dedicated to helping their clients succeed.

I also had the opportunity to experience a food truck here in Calgary for the first time, and I have to say the food was incredible, which was surprising to me since I was expecting it to be a lot like food you would find at the fair every year.

After one more meeting in the afternoon and some other tasks around the office, it has been an amazing learning experience, one that is above and beyond any classroom experience I have ever had. One thing I have really taken from today, is the fast pace work environment/industry that all the staff encounters on a daily basis, and all I can say is WOW! Their ability to work on multiple projects, all with different deadlines, and budgets is enough to make my head spin! Yet they handle the stress of it all as if it were the most common thing in the world and I respect the heck out of that!! – Intern1 aka Lacy