 |
Call us on 01733 891 860 (UK) or use this contact form |
 |
|
|
|||
|
 |
Moving communication campaigns into action |
|
|||
|
|
|
Avoiding graphic design blunders Here is a back issue of Marketing Booster, the email newsletter that Richard Groom writes and sends free every fortnight to subscribers. You can subscribe here or read over 60 back issues using the back issues index page. Over the past few weeks, the same issue has cropped up several times in discussions with my clients and others. It's something I have thought about a lot over the years, and so I want to share these thoughts. It's about the way that design agencies present new design concepts to their clients. I'm talking here about new corporate identities, or new concepts for brochures, advertising campaigns and so on. The reason this matters to me, and why I have an opinion on it, is because I don't write words that are presented in isolation: my copy joins up with the design and only works well when both are successful. So I am just as interested in the design side of things as I am in the words. So here's my observation: there's a huge flaw in the process that many design agencies use to present design concepts to their clients. Typically, an agency meets with its clients and talks them through the thought-process the agency used to arrive at the concept. Then they show the concept to the clients, continuing to explain what the imagery, colours and so on are supposed to represent. They will for example explain that concentric circles in a logo represent people working together, or that the blue in a brochure design represents clear thinking, and so on. Here's the problem: within seconds, the clients loose the ability to be objective and put themselves in their customers' shoes. They can't think like someone seeing the design for the first time, because they have heard the process that went into creating it. The danger therefore - and it is a potentially huge and expensive one - is that the concept makes its way into the real world without any objective feedback. That could mean a lot of money being spent on a design that the target audience won't understand. Even worse, the audience might get entirely the wrong meaning. Of course, larger agencies in particular will go on to do some testing with members of the target audience. They might hold focus groups to see if people understand the design concept. Then they can make revisions if people misunderstand the concept. (Even so, there are examples of massive rebranding exercises that have been misunderstood by the public after launch.) But for many agencies and clients this sort of testing isn't done as there isn't a budget for it. So if you are unlucky you will go all the way to print on corporate identities, brochures etc. without ever getting a completely objective view from someone seeing the concept for the first time. That's just crazy. There is another way. For example, when I write a first draft of new content for customers I never explain it to them. I don't want to, because I want to see what they think reading it for the first time. Often they will identify bits that they didn't understand. I like it when that happens because it mirrors what the eventual readers might have felt, and the feedback gives me a chance to make changes before publication. I would urge all agencies and clients - especially those who aren't going on to carry out concept user testing - to adopt a similar approach. The agency should be brave enough to start the presentation meeting by showing the client the concepts, and asking for feedback BEFORE explaining what the design means. It's a small change to the process that could save everyone a lot of time and money, if it identifies flaws in the concept that will never be spotted once the concept has been explained to the client. I've no doubt that Marketing Booster subscribers on the client and agency sides will have some thoughts on what I am saying here. So please do get in touch if you do, as I am truly interested in finding the best way to approach concept presentation. |