Perhaps this is not the right question, but it is one that comes up more and more often for me/my studio. Look at it this way: the design profession grew out of production — someone to plan how the things that were being produced would look and work. The profession has certainly changed over time, but designers are still essentially asked to create products of some sort: logos, books, packages, web sites, and so on. Implementation.

However, in my experience, it is frequently the case that the things we are asked to produce (and produce well at that!) are the wrong things to accomplish our clients’ goals. What could help avoid this result? Strategy.

For example: What good is my service of designing and supervising the printing of a beautiful direct mail piece when my client’s audience is far more likely to respond to an email blast? Seems like wasted effort and money. Wasted implementation.

I suspect it is extremely commonplace for us designer-types to respond to the client’s request for a new logo by simply providing a new logo instead of asking, “Do you really need a new logo?” Or at least “Why do you want a new logo?” followed by an extensive evaluation of the client’s products and services, goals and audience to determine if this plan is indeed a wise one.

So why don’t we designers just employ a little strategy and make the right things?

Well, most of us got into the profession exactly because we like implementation. We love stuff and we love to be involved in making it. Even if we can’t exactly produce the physical thing ourselves, we are happy to work with manufacturers who can.

And this isn’t a bad thing — in fact, for years it has been what has differentiated designers from nondesigners: that the things we designers made were of a better quality than the things we didn’t make. Simply looking at a company like Apple will reveal that this is still an important factor.

The other factor that keeps us from being far more strategic than we are right now is that it isn’t easy to be a good strategist. Just because I want to have a good strategy does not mean I will. It’s like wanting to be wise: just because I want it, or even work toward it, doesn’t mean I can attain wisdom. Some people get it and some don’t.

So what’s a good strategy for me to get good strategy? Heh. Do like me and focus back on implementation.

Ok, so maybe I’m kidding a little bit, but many a serious thing is said in jest. I have seen first hand that good strategists are not a dime a dozen. There’s very few of them in our own fair city, for example. And I have experience with my own shortcomings in my ability to provide a good plan for my business partners now and again.

So I ask this:

1. Is my assessment of the importance of strategy to design accurate?

2. If it is, how does one get better at it?

Will you hire me?

Let me make this simple: Design is the ultimate god in our world. And like the real God of the bigger World, it is routinely supplanted by devils. In agencies for example, the CW/AD team reigns supreme. If there are designers, they are relegated to the studio or to some dungeon where they turn out advertising tactic sub-assemblies for the "Team". This is all wrong. Deeply wrong. Tragically wrong. First of all it perpetuates the system wherein crappy, untalented team focus on doing TV (still!) to the detriment of the client and the agency. Second, it inverts (or puts sideways) the natural order. Design rules. It rules because it suggests—in whatever incarnation is appropriate) how things should function. Design is certainly designed. Copy is designed. Also, in good places, briefs are designed. And, wait for it, strategy is most assuredly designed. It had better be if we expect it to be good and viable. So to the question of the thread, I answer that designers (and we'd all better consider ourselves a such) a request for strategy should be taken in stride with requests for the tactical elements that achieve/fulfill the strategy. It's a sham that only "strategist" can devise strategies. Anyone with a sense of design, order, hierarchy, structure, rigor, etc can do it. I don't even need to mention the aesthetic part of design because I believe it's automatically included inn the words above. Not one of them precludes beauty and delight. In fact they demand it. Strategy falls below design in the pecking order. Not above it. We need merely ask our clients what they want their marketing to achieve for their company. It's a simple disarming question that makes them think. Because we should not proceed without a clear answer. Additionally, let us be clear with them about what we believe this will cost given the design firm's approach to achieving the client's goals. If there's a fuzzy place in all this it's the inflection point where we have to explain why our approach, our ideas, our "design" is best for achieving their goals. How are we interpreting their brand story assets and deploying them? That's the work. But it's always rooted in things as basic as, "this will sell 5000 more units in Wichita". If yiou're a good designer, you're a good strategist. Period.

the other thing that keeps us from being the best possible strategists is at the very core of our (or any for that matter) profession. designers are, in some sense of the word, salespeople. combine that with your fact that good designers truly love the act of implementation and it's easy to see why the profession rarely engages in talking businesses out of a 'new logo'.

hell, we are trained to come up with reasons why a small business or corporation WOULD need a new identity system. many times the reasons are valid, many times they are not—but it's shameful how few designers engage in 'needs assessment' and instead simply do as they are told to collect a paycheck. i think we have all been guilty of this… and to some end it may be unavoidable. however it would be nice to see it become the exception to the rule as opposed to the rule itself.

it's also shameful how few businesses want to be bothered by something like this—they have an idea in their mind of how things should run and they really just want a design-as-commodity logo and stationery system to make everything look less fly-by-night. however i do believe there is a change trickling down to the small business owners. design-as-buzzword is slowly starting to wear off, but small business owners are now actually realizing the importance of design on a local scale.

i am guessing/hoping that as time passes this trickle-down will become even more widespread and they will be even more open to incorporating design into their ventures. not design as aesthetics, but design as a way of thinking, a way of problem-solving—as something that leaves no aspect of the business and business plan untouched.

once we can get the business owners on board then we have a much better chance of sitting down at a round table and saying 'the best thing i can off you as a design is ______________.' and actually having them listen.

this probably doesn't help answer the two questions at the end of your entry, but that's my rant.

oh… one more thing and then i am really done.

good strategy IS good implementation IS good strategy

god knows we have all seen our fair share of one completely ruining the other.

Isn't "designing" the act something we/everyone does to an extent (or should be doing)? Isn't "designing" at it's core the exercise of thoughtfully, intentionally, and creatively accomplishing some goal?

I'm inclined to agree with Todd in answering these questions in the affirmative. I think that intentional thinking, the abstracting and then implementing that comes with designing, contains aspects analogous to thinking strategically about "brands" or "marketing" or "positioning" or anything for that matter.

I find it a little inspiring, actually, that there are ways of thinking, tools, concepts, and methods in the discipline of Graphic Design that can be "ported" (to use a geek term) to software development, or marketing, or even how I care for loved ones.

Everything overlaps. So be thoughtful, smart, and creative in whatever it is you're doing.

Paul, if potential clients are approaching you for strategy then it's because they believe you can do it. What have you done to lead them to this conclusion? From your post it sounds like you did it by accident. "Getting better at strategy" may simply mean you answer my question.

OK here are a coupla more cents:

At Widgets in the past two years I think we’ve unintentionally engineered this question from clients, or at least engineered ratcheting it up, because we’ve moved away from the “Wiz behind the curtain” presentation of design that asks a few questions about PRIZM codes, disappears for a week, and then churns out a logo that we insist will work.

Rather we’ve delved into the values, personality and most importantly business objectives of our clients, and then/only then brought recommended design to the table. A high degree of client focus, and building confidence that they will have an identity (big word) that they can live with, be proud of, and carry successfully into the marketplace.

The trust built in this process is just that - trust. And while design might be called god, at the end of the day clients are regular folks. When you trust someone, you go back to them for more and more. "Hey, you’re smart when you did X for me, can you help me with Y and Z too?

This is of course related to what Bradley said, there’s also the factor of people not wanting to be bothered; they’d rather throw a project to some experts and get back a “to do” list than sit down and walk through the challenging and sometimes depressing-before-it’s-hopeful process of evaluating where they are related to where they want to be. I don’t blame them. I like outsourcing too - there's something comforting in having a trusted hand "take care of it" in everything from car repair to what I should eat.

That said, there are some things that shouldn’t be outsourced (a company’s vision, long term goals, knowledge of customers, and accountability for products, to name a few). And, THAT said, among the things that are left... e.g. developing a market penetration strategy... just because a client needs it doesn’t mean that we need to help.

It’s perfectly OK to limit the scope of what Widgets or any other firm wants to do. Maybe even healthy, since any business has to choose who they want to be (and that means choosing more than just a desired share price or profit margin).

This would especially be OK if three or four firms decided to be complementary partners, each with skills sets that unite around this very issue - hot dang that cord of three strands would kick it here in town.

I agree with Paul's implication that there is a need, and a potential revenue stream, here in Chattanooga. In the absence of such a partnership among focused companies... I don’t know if it’s enough to sustain a marketing agency, but if someone out there reads this and is willing to come be patient with salary figures then they could do a lot of good. I know; I’ve turned down 5 job offers since October, and I’m a writer. Yes, a writer in Chattanooga is turning down marketing/communications strategy job offers. So getcher arse down South.

I agree that what needs to be “designed” are systems, approaches, aesthetics, all. But I also think that what Todd said, with his broad definition of designer, can be broadened even more. If you’re willing to step back and look at how a client’s values, personality and promise meet up with target customers’ values, personality and wants, then you can write strategy. After that, it comes down to experience and knowing what works in what media, market and price range.

If I can offer my humble opinion…

Answers:

1. Yes.
2. Keep designing.

Paul, I get what you are saying. Some clients need saving from themselves. Sometimes that means that we designers need to work our magic and create thoughtful ways to communicate their business goals to their audience. But, as we see more often than not, sometimes the client doesn't need design solutions– they need much more. Now of course we all have our opinions on how we would run the business and on what direction to take it, but frankly there are professions who are much better at these things than we are (just like every Mac user isn't a designer).

I agree with the majority here on the fact that "design" can be defined as strategy and visa versa, but I don't think that's what Paul is referring to. What we graphic designers ultimately do for a client overlaps a great deal with business strategy, but sometimes the most helpful we can be to them is to say "no". Brad raises a great point with our "salesman" nature. Sure we can design something for a client and sure we can sell you on the design, but that's besides the point. For example, if Coca-Cola came to us with their green backs flashing in our twinkling eyes asking for a new logo we could provide that logo for them (and if it's widgets & stone designing it it would be badass), but we all know in our hearts that whatever new thing we do for them nothing will be better than their existing logo. Nothing. Now perhaps this is a really bad example to prove my point. Coke is Coke. We (including Coke) know that their implementation and strategy is just fine. We rarely get the Coke clients. ;)

But to give us designers credit where credit is due, whether it's design strategy for business solution or marketing strategy for business solution it's still strategy for business solution. Part of our job is researching every angle of the client's business. Sometimes we even get a better idea on the direction the client needs to go better than they do- whether that direction is "making something" or sending them away empty handed. We may offer market strategy over logo. Are we the most qualified to do that? Maybe not. But the more design becomes less buzz-word and more legitimate business solution the more we designers are asked to just help.

Our profession is no longer as simple as just making stuff. Though, we always will have that solution readily available, we must expand our solutions along with the ever expanding definition of design.

I heard an ad on the radio this morning for a local DESIGN firm that does web sites, branding and digital canvas portraits. Branding and wall art in the same breath...

I disagree that all thoughtful acts of life are "design" and that all designers are strategists. I've known great designers who were horrible strategists and I've known great strategists that could sell you a bag of shit. They don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Paul is right that it is rare to meet someone with both skills/talents.

Consider our beloved AIGA's SHIFT to strategic thinking. Were we all strategists it would not be required. We've had to make a change from promoting craft to promoting business acumen in order to preserve the value of our profession. I think it's the right decision, but the unforeseen consequence a self-deluded mass of creative professionals who are claiming expertise in branding, business, sustainability and strategy followed by non-designing "capital D" DESIGNERS who don't design anything.

Making dinner doesn't make one a chef. Customizing MySpace pages doesn't make one a web designer. Making logos doesn't make a branding expert and holding "discovery" sessions doesn't make one a strategist. It's easy to puff oneself up with critical thinking, analyzing this and tearing apart that. But once the onion is peeled you need to make a plan. Our education system does a good job of developing analytical skills but not strategic or development skills. And there's no substitute for tactical experience.

Let's stop elevating and redefining the term "designer" to some god-given answer to all of life's problems and the penultimate title to attain or promote. Let's confess that we're all not strategists. I'm happy to join Paul acknowledging that many times I have no idea what to recommend to a customer, and it's OK — a shallow recommendation based on the latest buzzwords only cheapens my reputation and our profession.

Are there two Michael's in this thread? Design is our cute industry-centric word for context-specific, intelligent structuring. If you can do it, you can do it. I'm not elevating anything. Your response indicates that you've fallen for the artificially blown-out-of-proportion title inflation of those who create "strategy" as some higher order being. I dismiss that. Nor do I claim it's the answer to all of life's problems. Not sure why you've made it so melo-dramatic when all I was saying—clearly—was that if you're a designer i.e. a creative artist successfully crafting words and images into compelling and delightfully engaging tactics, then you shouldn't have much difficulty turning your skill to the intimately related challenges of properly deploying your work and deciding why it's smart to do it. Your argument is strained and misconstrues what I wrote. If strategy is a plan to achieve a stated objective, then why aren't designers capable of doing that? Now to the issue of Chattanooga's prospects for this area of endeavor, well, why not? Make it happen. When clients ask for a strategy ask them what their objectives are and go for it. Making it falsely esoteric is bullshit.
Todd...

I'll say it again - this time with feeling and clarity:
All designers ARE NOT strategists.
All strategists ARE NOT designers.
If you can do both, your probably rock.

Michael (which one?) said:

"I'll say it again - this time with feeling and clarity:
All designers ARE NOT strategists.
All strategists ARE NOT designers.
If you can do both, your probably rock."

Todd, says, again, of course that's true. BUT it doesn't mean they couldn't be if they tried. I will continue to argue that structure building, order creating sensibilities are flexible in the application. Like Tom Selleck's Quigley says to Rickman's Marsten at the end of "Quigley Down Under" regarding Quigley's facility with a pistol, "I said I never had much use for one. Never said I didn't know how to use it." Now, the mere fact that I've deployed a quote from a middling Tom Selleck to drive home my brilliantly unassailable point should serve as sufficient evidence of the power of the designer's mind. Shazam! Todd...

Now now... while I greatly appreciate candor and passion, let’s be sure to keep this discourse civil.

Sounds to me like the many Michaels and several Todds have reached at least this agreement: a designer who can strategize or a strategist who can design has a distinct advantage over just a plain designer or singular strategist. In essence, strategy is to design as the sight is to Quigley’s rifle (or the aim to his pistol).

What I had hoped would come out of the discussion is an idea of how I can get better at my strategy. My clients, my community and my city desperately need it. Heck, even me and my family need it. And I guess “you can do it!” or “just try harder” or “Yeah, that sucks, I don’t know” weren’t quite the answer I was looking for...

Well, fine. As long as we've determined that I'm right, we can start to help Paul!

I say, "Practice!"

Pitch engagements that will let you smartly contextualize a larger design engagement and integrate it with the client's bizstrat. Marketing's been disconnected for too long.

This is going to be a bad example, because I'll sound sooo consumerist for a minute, but bear with me:

Sometimes I don't NEED a new pair of shoes, but then one day I will get a new pair, say a pair of red shoes I wasn't expecting in the mail. They might be completely unneeded as SHOES and function no better than the other pair. But suddenly, because there's something NEW, everywhere I walk, through the gray of the city, through the subway--everywhere I am is just a little different because there is this new little brightness. And the brightness somehow inspires a little internal brightness, I couldn't muster up before the brighter shoes were near my field of viewing. And it expands into all my interactions. SHOES?

I think that everything you're writing about in your post is key. It's of course imperative for you to always be finding and moving toward ideal points in life, and observing, rationalizing, and strategizing is a lot of that. And I know how stuck it can feel 'making a new logo' but don't undermine any of these updates (I'm not arguing against not unnecessarily printing a load of direct mail to be wasted) because shifts in anything cause other shifts in everything. A lot of what actually affects can come from things unplanned even just a change in color?

This is going to be a bad example, because I'll sound sooo consumerist for a minute, but bear with me:

Sometimes I don't NEED a new pair of shoes, but then one day I will get a new pair, say a pair of red shoes I wasn't expecting in the mail. They might be completely unneeded as SHOES and function no better than the other pair. But suddenly, because there's something NEW, everywhere I walk, through the gray of the city, through the subway--everywhere I am is just a little different because there is this new little brightness. And the brightness somehow inspires a little internal brightness, I couldn't muster up before the brighter shoes were near my field of viewing. And it expands into all my interactions. SHOES?

I think that everything you're writing about in your post is key. It's of course imperative for you to always be finding and moving toward ideal points in life, and observing, rationalizing, and strategizing is a lot of that. And I know how stuck it can feel 'making a new logo' but don't undermine any of these updates (I'm not arguing against not unnecessarily printing a load of direct mail to be wasted) because shifts in anything cause other shifts in everything. A lot of what actually affects can come from things unplanned even just a change in color?