Nice. Would've loved to see versions with the changes made. Oh, and I'm gonna need them by tonight.
Wow, this is pretty arrogant and ignorant. What a way to view clients. It reflects more on the agency's issues than anything else.
This comes at a perfect time for me though. I'm putting together a speech on how to run design reviews, and this perfectly illustrates everything that is wrong with the way that some design firms view their clients and stakeholders. It will make my point for me. Thanks in advance.
I agree, it's very ignorant. It should be the agency's or designer's job to educate the client and make the expectations clear. It also ignores the historical contexts of where the posters were made. People in those eras have different tastes, and requirements.
Although I do recognize that graphic designers get the "Make it pop" comments a lot more than UI and (to some extend) web designers, I still find it a lot effort post.
I agree, it's very ignorant. It should be the agency's or designer's job to educate the client
This is a very romanticised view of client interactions that I also held when I just started out in the business...but after a decade of client work, reality is that the education route is often fruitless and tiresome. Most clients I've dealt with, from small startups to massive corporations, aren't ready to be educated.
The article is satire, but it's funny only because it reflects reality in some ways.
I'm just a guy in design school with little experience with clients so far, although I have read the horror stories. I'm admittedly quite ignorant.
What is your method with dealing client requests?
Depends on the client.
I tend to point out flaws, point at past experiences, research and other numbers.
If That fails, just build it and test it. And if you end up A/B testing, it won't always show you're right, even if you follow the book. Clients aren't retards. They just think differently. Trust their knowledge of their own industries and target audiences. Often A & B are both wrong. C & D might be too. Design is iteration.
Note that even if you build something that's sub-optimal, it's up to you as a designer to both;
- Make the most of it, and;
- learn from the experience.
Even the worst design has its advantages that you can learn from.
And always; have fun. Constraints are there to HELP you, not to stop you from doing your job.
Thanks for your insights.
You make a good point and I want to agree but I don't think this is so black and white.
I've had the pleasure of dealing with this type of heavy-handed feedback many times before and it generally boils down to how the client reaction is managed. You either face the feedback with a firm dose of "education" OR you accept it and just do as the client says.
From my experience (I sure hope it's limited), the educate-the-client route is not taken very often, ESPECIALLY if the client happens to be a corporation with legal/brand/management teams. Try educating 30 different people when you will never get the chance to speak with 95% of them.
This post illustrates a coping mechanism for many creative teams and the struggle is real. I'd be mighty impressed if an agency or designer was able to successfully negotiate and educate their client on EVERY bit of cringe-worthy feedback.
That being said, I admire your stance on this.
I agree it's kind of a tired trope and not that funny, but if it makes any difference this is actually a really good (and pretty famous) agency. I doubt they actually view clients this way, it's probably more something they did for laughs (and clicks).
I'm still trying to figure out if this and some of the other comments are intended as a joke. I mean, if you had taken the two seconds it takes to read the first tiny paragraph you would have read this:
"Paris agency Graphéine decided to show what would happen if famous artworks were given to clients."
As in, this didn't actually happen.Also if you're still writing that speech of yours, try to not use satire articles to back up your ideas. Also if you have time, talk a bit about how important context is.
I'm fully aware that this is satire, and I'm calling it out as being arrogant and ignorant. If it had happened to an actual client, that would be an immensely worse situation.
Surely you must understand how overly dramatic that sounds. By that logic, you're saying that any kind of observational humour or jokes based on real things that happen all the time is arrogant and ignorant. I can understand that you might not find it funny but man, you gotta lighten up.
How did we just go from "don't mock the people that pay your bills" to "all observational humor is terrible"?
Well, I'm assuming what they did was observe things that have happened to either themselves or other professionals in the industry and then made a funny about how this might have affected famous artwork. However, despite you being fully aware that this is satire and completely fictional you call it ignorant and arrogant. Your reasoning for this is that they are trashing hypothetical clients in scenarios that did not happen. That's how I got there.
I mean it's one thing to say don't talk bad about your actual or potential clients, but to compare that to a joke article (that makes it incredibly clear that its contents are entirely fictional and for fun) is a bit of reach, no?
You're right—but lighten up. It's just a little satire.
Every junior or intermediate designer goes through this. Senior designers know better (this is what I expect to separate junior vs. senior actually). Some people put up with less bullshit naturally.
Nope. Can't look at this.
12 years in the industry.
Still too real.
The original spin as a "design by committee" problem is A+. It's still funnyish as a client joke, but we're all somewhat guilty of doing this to ourselves in the internal side on occasion.
CreativeBloq's post also has some more backstory.