Digital Distractions

I don’t want your art.

2010-07-13T08:13:00.001-07:00

I wrote this a while ago as a journal entry while I was an art teacher at Kiley Middle school. I'm posting it here, having found it again, as an impetus to keep posting regularly.

***************************

One of the frustrating things with teaching art in my situation is what to do with it when it is done. There are two key situations that I find disconcerting. First, that the kids always want to give me their art when they are done. In a sense it is flattering. I have a sense that I’ve show a student how to do something neat, and they want to share the fruits of that experience and knowledge with the person that brought them to it.

In a way, I’m happy to have it. One of the difficulties in my first year of teaching was that, for my most successful lessons, I had the exemplars that I created to show how to do it, but no student samples. With so little storage space, and no sense early on as to how to organize and store the work, I didn’t think until nearly the end of the year to simply take pictures of the products in class. The only product that I created were ones that I’d use to create the single art bulletin board, in a back hallway in the school. And part of my job was to try and get the kids to value their work, and take it home.

But that’s the essential problem. Kids in the class, it seems, are used to looking at finished, polished pieces of art, completed on a computer, airbrushed intricately and with nary a ragged edge. As such, when they created amazing pieces of spontaneous art (that type of work which is possible with an abundance of talent and inspiration and the constraint of little time that is the hallmark of younger minds), they thought it messy, ugly, imperfect and unworthy. The kids have a hard time seeing something that they have created as having an inherent value, of being something of and with quality.

So I’ve taken to collecting their art.

It’s a bit of a problem, as I am operating off of a cart, and don’t have a space of my own in which to store it. From past experience, a spectacular piece of kids art has a shelf life of only about two years, before my shedding of a pack-rat mentality forces me to clean house. Unless the art serves as an excellent exemplar of a great lesson, and I actually file it with the lesson plan for that lesson, sooner ir later it’s going to hit the same recycling bin it was destined for, months or years earlier. And that makes me sad.

So I am redoubling my efforts to get the kids to take their art home. A piece of art brought home is good for the kids, in their ability to grow an appreciation for their own abilities through exposure. It helps them see that they can do something cool, and maybe inspire them to something new, next time. But more that that, a piece of art brought home also exposes parents to that art. While an average disinterested parent might be baffled by algebra homework, or disinterested in seeing the answers to written reading comprehension lesson, they can instantly take in and become engaged by a piece of art. A parent might feel intimidated by content that they never learned themselves. But, in my experience, no one is intimidated by kids art. And, as with all visual art, no one is without an opinion of it, nor shy about expressing it.

So it is in my enlightened self-interest in two ways, to assure that the art goes home with the kids. But how to do it is the key problem. And one I’ve not yet begun to address satisfactorily.

Preschool Demographics 3: Parents and Reading.

2009-09-08T08:54:00.000-07:00

I said I was going to talk about the words next, but something else occurs, first:

To get kids to read, parents are told to provide provide preschoolers with plenty of books and other reading materials that they can explore at their leisure, in any down time. Further, they are told that reading to their child from this collection, excitedly, helps communicate that reading is fun. . In short, kids want to do what parents tell them is fun to do. If parents ‘ooo’ and ‘ahhh’ over their vegetables, there is the potential preschool kids will want to eat those, first. I can speak to this from my own experience.

Reading helps preschoolers identify mechanics like capital letters and small letters, and sentence elements like periods and commas, and also basic sentence structure. Parents can also help kids learn specific words by sight. But this secondary step should not take the place of the first.

By way of illustrating this, I remember an open house with my children’s second grade teacher. There she emphasized to a class of parents, sitting in too-small chairs, that we need to read to and with our kids, as an avenue to helping them get these sight words. One of the busier mothers commented that she did not have time for this in a structured fashion, but that she did help identify words on the street, like STOP on a stop sign, or words on street signs. I stifled back the urge to call out “That’s behavior you’re supposed to teach to a pre schooler, or first grader, M’am. This is second grade. Read him a book.”

Anyway, for preschoolers, illustrated storybooks are most relevant because the child can follow along with the story as the parent reads, Parents help foster reading comprehension by asking questions about the story and about the pictures. This is picked up in later books as the art of reading and writing for context.

One of the products I worked on at Great Source Education Group was called the Readers Handbook, and another was called Reading Advantage. Both dissected the reading process, helping students to break down critical reading strategies and tools to use in reading (such as imagining what would happen next in fiction). They also had reading tools and organizers, and an outline that distinguished different types of text. It was amazing as an adult, to realize that at some point I was taught what was fiction versus non-fiction, what the structure was for a newspaper article versus a magazine feature article, etc. that’s all stuff that’s so ingrained, I never thought to question how it got to be so. It just always was—because I was a reader from an early age. These book, intended for grades 4 through 12, presents teachers with tools for helping students who are not early readers develop the skills to understand what reading was all about, dissecting what was essentially (for me at least) a transparent process.

But the goal for the demographic at hand is to teach them this through the first course, that is by teaching them to read and to love reading. And, again, the best path to this is through their parents. And the best way to get the parents to communicate that reading s fun, is by making it so in the books they read to their kids.

I heard a report the other morning that Reading Rainbow, a show that’s been on the air for 26 years, and is the third-longest children’s programming on PBS (Behind Sesame Street and Mister Roger’s Neighborhood) is ending, because the former sponsors, PBS or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or any station, will not front the several thousands of dollars to renew the broadcast rights. The reasoning behind this, in my own filtered nutshell, due to a shift in public policy and governmental focus from shows that talk about a love of reading to shows that focus on the basics of phonics and spelling—the “building blocks” of reading.

It occurs to me this leaves an inspirational, aspirational vacuum. Kids will learn to read, because schools require it. But my experience has been that you need first to teach kids to learn to read, then read to learn, and lastly love to read. The first and second are the basics that are being tackled in school, but the third is being left as a big hole, which will need to be filled.

Preschool Demographics 2: Magical thinking

2009-09-04T08:51:00.000-07:00

Initially, I have defined the ideal type of book to produce by my previously outlined criteria—the type that does the most good to early readers—as being the read-to-me type. The goal is to produce a book that entertains the kids, on a kid level, but also, more importantly, entertains the parents. Because, as I started out the last entry saying, ultimately, if you’re selling a book to a kid who can’t read and can’t pay for it, you have to know you’re selling to the parent. So, on some level, the book always talking to the parent.

But the book also is not. The book is also talking to, and aimed at, kids that are able to think magically, a gift that a lot of parent’s have lost. This is why you can make a balloon a main character, why animals talking makes perfect sense, and why the illustrations become so important in communicating multiple layers of subtext that the content cannot.

So how do you speak to magical thinking, which is ideal for the target, without the parents getting in the way? In other words, how do you make something magical enough to capture the kids, without making it so alien that it turns off the parents? First key is to understand to some degree, what magical thinking is, how it relates to preschoolers, and how they interact with their parents.

Preschool age kids are going through a lot. They are growing physically, at an exponential rate. They are just beginning to learn independence from their parents, for the first time at this age starting to have an appreciation for their parent’s as separate entities, rather than somehow additional external appendages to themselves. And as such, they are beginning—just beginning—to assert their independence, in baby steps. They are testing the world, as they explore it, and learning to differentiate how many other external elements are within, or out of their control. In this, the boundaries of imagination and reality are interchangeable to a large degree. This is the age of the development of the imagination, and it coincides with their brain growth.

Children’s brains at this age are likewise developing at a rapid rate. It’s amazing to think that, conglomeration of cells that could only carry out autonomic functions four years ago have, by age four, begun to think abstractly. While all this development is going on, it’s important to realize it’s within an egocentric atmosphere. Preschoolers are learning about their world, but within the context of how it relates to them. For example, they may understand that it gets dark because the sun goes down, and they have to go to bed. That may translate into an understanding of the sun, that includes the sun having to “go to bed.” And on an overcast morning where they don’t feel like getting up, and don’t see the sun, it may seem perfectly reasonable that they are mad at the sun for not getting up, and mad at the parent for making them get up, and grumpy without explaining why, until and unless the sun comes out. These and a hundred other complex “I shouldn’t have to do this” scenarios reflective of egocentric thinking, mixed with magical support, make up some of the problems parents can run into with their kids without even knowing it.

Parents (often) “grow out” of the ability to think magically, and therefore have a hard time making these connections. Therefore parents, while supportive of the magical thinking, are also working to pull their kids more into the concrete of the parent’s world. And kids are frankly, just as anxious to go. The key becomes how to use and allow for kids magical thinking, while allowing for the introduction of realistic, rational elements, in a mix that parents find palatable, acceptable, and will want to pass on to their kids.

And publishers are aware of this push and tug. Therefore a story like Maurice Sendak’s Where the Wild Things Are, so popular it was just turned into a major motion picture, would frankly have a difficult time being published, today. The idea of a book making it okay for a kid to climb out a window and sail across the world would set off alarms. Similarly, Seuss’ The Cat in the Hat: The idea of letting a stranger in when you’re alone in the house, or even being left alone in the house, would be a hard sell today. This is because publishers are creating a third firewall, in front of the parents, who are the initial firewall in front of the kids. All this without any of these bulwarks necessarily appreciating the element of magical thinking, and acknowledging that kids can know not to let a strange man in the house with no one home, while still letting it be okay that a giant talking feline with a haberdashery fixation is perfectly fine. Magical thinking allows for both options.

There are a few studies out there (most notably in England), studying the connection between children's magical thinking and perception of reality. These studies have rested on three main pillars of study; parental input, children's inherent beliefs and children's responses to "magical" events. Obviously these are inter-connected. Parents encouraging a belief in Santa Claus play on inherent beliefs, and have a response that is reinforced not only by society (television specials, movies and mall Santas) but also be perceivable events (Christmas morning). The gist that I got out of it are the 3 main points I presented above; 1) magical thinking is natural part of development, 2) parent's encourage magical thinking while also working to educate children beyond it, and 3) most children and the luckiest adults still use creative and magical thinking. That, then, is my target.

Understanding, and really being able to take advantage of this, is the area that produces the best read-to-me children’s literature. So with that understanding, we move on to the language, and the imagery.

Next: What’s the words?

Preschool Demographics 1: Introduction

2009-09-01T10:36:00.000-07:00

I'm working on a children's book, as viewers of this web site over the past year...or two years...may be aware. But, though I do many things very slowly, I do few things half way. So, there is some target audience research involved here. The first thing I realize is that you are not selling a children's book to children, but to the parents of children. But. that said, it is still essential to understand kids at the Pre-K level. Here is the first of a series where I explore that target audience.

In defining what is a good idea for a children’s book, we need to acknowledge on truth: that ultimately, if you’re selling a book to a kid who can’t read and can’t pay for it, you have to know you’re selling to the parent.

And what does that parent want? Hopefully, what’s best for the kid. They need a book that will entertain the child, capture the child’s imagination, and ideally teach that child something. But finding that balance is the key, and doing it with a product that is actually unique, playful, fun and at the same time mature, educational and meaningful is the challenge.

So let’s save that for the end of the exploration. Let’s start with easy questions.

First, we need to narrow the target—initially, by age group. We’re talking about kids who cannot read or are just-beginning readers, again, Kindergarten or Pre-K kids. This is the age group that is key to reaching, in terms of making the most significant and early difference to their lives.

There is a program called the Harlem Children’s Zone, which the Prez talked about during the election, and is putting into action:

)

This successful program has been the subject of much media coverage, and one book

The gist of the discussion point here is that kids need to be read to. The more kids are read to, the greater their minds are stimulated, the greater their vocabulary becomes, and the more open they become to more knowledge. Reading to kids makes them smarter. The more you read to them, the greater their potential becomes, simply in the fact of increased vocabulary, increased exposure to more words, and increased susceptibility to new ideas.

Having defined my ideal goal for creating a childrens book is to produce it for the age it can do the most good, Next, I'm going to discriminate two categories: read to me, and read to myself. The read to myself books (I can read, and a whole slew of early reader titles) are much more limited and limiting. This is the type of book we see much more of, and frankly, IMHO, too much of. Maybe it's just because I come out of educational publishing. But it seems every reading program develops it's own slew of trademarks readers all of which have the correct parts, right language, and the same amount of imagination (or lack thereof). One or two simple books (or even book series) like this are enough to give kids a sense of accomplishment, and in that they are important. But man, there are already too many series of these out there.

In the end, I think the author and the reader is getting more bang for the buck with the "read to me" kind. Maybe I don't have the research to support that assertion, but I bet if you ask adults their favorite books to have read early on, you might get some books from the "I Can read" series, but you aren't going to get too many saying "I just loved the McGraw-Hill Leveled Readers series!" You're going to get Very Hungry Caterpillar, and Whistle for Willie, and the Polar Express. You're going to get stories that stuck.

So, for my ideal, I want a project that will inspire parents to read to their kids, by capturing the adult imagination, in a subject that is energized and interesting to the child, trusting that, where the parent goes, the child will clamor to follow.

Next: Magical Thinking.

Adventures in logo development (3 of 3)

2009-02-02T18:05:00.000-08:00

The end result of the logo development was determined and fine-tuned with the President of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, through the Corporate Communication office. My next step, coordinated with other Design Directors and Designers at HMH, was to develop usage guidelines.

At the time I started this project, I thought existing usage guidelines would be provided for me to work with, redesign, or update as necessary, with the new logo suites. To my surprise, however, discovered that no such usage guidelines existed. This was reflected in the previously disparate Houghton logos that existed across the various business units at the time, as outlined below:

The goal was to start with a clean slate, to develop a clean suite of logos across all the business units, and then provide the usage guidelines for implementation. Because this seemed too possible a task, a time element was added—the usage document and the cohesive logo suites had to be created over the course of four days, in order to be ready for the upcoming Education conference season. Keep in mind, design studios typically have months to prepare a usage document, with multiple versions and revisions as every particular usage is considered, dozens of people are consulted and have input, and the document is fine tuned. I had four days between go-ahead and final delivery of both the usage document and all the final files. And two of those days were around my regular day job as the Design Director for Great Source. The Corporate Communications department was garnering heat from al the divisions, which needed to have the usage guidelines, and more importantly the logos themselves, in time to get large convention-sized banners created. And, fool that I am, I hesitate to say “die”, even when the bullet’s gone clean through the cerebellum.

So, I pulled all my experience in corporate usage documentation, which had for previous years been on the user-end, rather than the provider end. Corporate entities from United Healthcare to Prevent Child Abuse America (PCAA), among others, had provided me with extensive usage guidelines for products I’ve produced for previous employers. And, for some reason I couldn’t put my finger on at the time, I‘d collected and filed them all. Now I pulled them all out and spread them out in my Boston home office to try and determine what would be needed for the HMH Usage Guideline document.

I fully expected that the simple, rough document I put together would be heavily edited and reworked, But I was pleasantly surprised when it came back with minor structural edits—the content that I had written outlining usage was virtually unchanged. With great attention to detail, but also under intense time constraints, I worked personally with Corporate Communications to fine tune the final documentation.

See, in working through this process and needing to turn on a dime, I had taken on the project myself. In fact, I had all the files on my personal laptop, ad only there (though backed up on a backup drive) ready at any and every point to turn them over to another design house of Corporate Communications choosing. But that call never came.

I worked on them over a final weekend, after which I was to attend one of the first conferences of the season, in Florida. So it was that I found myself making the final changes to the Usage document at Logan Airport at 5am, paying for WiFi internet access to upload the final files to the corporate server for distribution to all the business units. I was literally the last one to board the plane, as it required me to close my laptop and break the WiFi connection, and I wanted all the files uploaded to the server for use.

It was an exercise in dedication. Later, the corporate communications director I’d been working with promised to bring me out for a drink in Boston, which never materialized in the days before I left HMH. But all significant exercises require breaking at least a little sweat.

All told, I developed and prepared multiple files (for usages from everything from conference banners to book spines)for multiple business units, including Corporate, School division, Religion division, Trade and Reference division, Learning Technology, International, Supplemental division (of which Great Source was a part), Holt McDougal, and Riverside. These had to be created in the three standard PMS colors, Black, white and PMS 293, and had to be provide in .ai (illustrator) .pdf (Acrobat) and .eps formats. Later, corporate asked me to take away all the editable .ai versions.

Below are a very few sample pages.

Afterword: These are indeed pages from the corporate usage guidelines for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, used through 2008. However, I recently learned that this document was revised and replaced with one that was (as anticipated) outsourced to an external design house, which was paid a number with several more zeroes than I recieved to produce it. It's a pretty thing, with additional an PMS color palette, developed to complement the corporate approved colors.

But I'll bet they didn't do it in four days, in their pajamas. So there.

Then again, I'll bet they got their beer.

Logo production under the gun ain't for pansies.

Adventures in logo development (2 of 3)

2009-01-28T14:51:00.000-08:00

So, though we explored many examples of blending the two logos, we had to be aware of the actual existing colophons, and ensuring that we maintained that resonant identity into the new Below are some early studies of the logo development.

For giggles, here is one of the sheets With some very early sketches, with some of the notes I got from phone conference critiques from the head of Corporate Communciations. Such scattershot approach is essential early on when you;re working on tight deadline and in multiple directions at once. You need to see what they like about A and B and C, when all three choices are radically different, so that you can see which of the three directions you should move forward into. More often than not, it will merely be an elimination of one of the several directions (which still means a ton of work in different directions. But sometimes its about getting to what you want, by crossing out other directions.

This series was built off the existing colopon, the dolphin. There is a story behind the boy riding the dolphin with the flute, but the fact is that 99% of the public out there does not know it. The dolphin colophon IS recognizable though, and so it was important early on to explore how much it could change, and yet remain. The foal with this series was also to play with bits of the Harcourt logo that could be incorporated into the dolphin colophon. Could talk for hours about the intent of each of the following, but the reality of logo communication is how you react to it in the first few seconds. How you react to it the next day is also important (that is, which logos stayed in your mind) but the truth is that neither instance requires a long monologue accompanyment. I will say, I especially liked the simplicity of the bottom three.

This group tried to bridge the strength of the Harcourt logo with the light elegance of the identity of the existing Houghton Mifflin logo. The direction is decidedly different from either pre-existing logo, and for that reason these were the least likely to be considered. Nevertheless, I do see some strengths in the identity and direction.

In the end, where we ended up was not so very different from where we started, which is often the case with corporate development. Here is the final logo, from the usage document I created:

This logo, arguably, is merely an extrapolation of the existing Houghton Mifflin logo, with the addition of the Harcourt name. The decision was made at the top corporate level—though I never was part of the discussion, I had the feedback funneled back to me from the head of the company himself. My own choice, had I been able to express an opinion at that level, would have been different. But then, I rooted for the Red Sox for a lot of years that they lost, too.

Adventures in corporate logo development (1 of 3)

2009-01-12T11:15:00.000-08:00

Houghton Mifflin merged with Harcourt in January of 2008. Of course, it was in the works for months before this. In fact, it was in the works, unbeknownst to me, before I was even hired. But that’s a story for another day.

For the months before the merger, Corporate Communications had been doing prep work with several design firms and focus testing groups to determine what the new identity for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt should be. They’d collected a wealth of information, but hadn’t yet seen anything they liked. That wealth of discussion and information was the pile that was dropped on my desk in November, when Steve Tapp, then President of Great Source, tapped me as new Design Director of Great Source, a division of Houghton Mifflin, if I and my group would take a stab at it. Of course, we did.

At Great Source, I managed a staff of Senior Designers, spread over a volume of five disciplines; Math, Science, Social Studies, Reading and Language Arts. Given this workload, and the fact that this logo work was spread on top of it, I didn’t feel comfortable assigning the work of logo research, development and sketching, so I presented it to them as an opportunity that they could participate in, but not a requirement. One Senior Designer stepped up to the idea, and delivered some solid sketches. In addition, I dug into this myself.

As food for this, we studied the results of several focus group reports, as well some competitors logo suites (examples below).

We also did research into corporate branding in general. There are many areas to balance in logo branding; history of the corporation, symbolism inherent in the logo, and what the logo is intended to evoke or communicate. We studied a wealth of great texts, such as Fresh Ideas in Corporate Identity, by Mary Cooper and Lynn Haller. But at the end of the day, we weren’t starting with a blank slate-—we were working on blending two well established and vested corporate identities, into a new form of life.

Part of the issue was that combining the Harcourt logo (below)

with the Houghton Mifflin logo (below).

was too deceptively simple. The Harcourt logo symbolized ripples on water, the ripples reflecting the effect of education, literature, et al. The Houghton logo was a boy on a dolphin, which is a mythological reference that’s a mystery to 8 out of 10 people. But the colophon was nonetheless memorable and easily identifiable to many customers. Therefore it might seem combining a boy on a dolphin with rippling water would be a no-brainer…except for the fact that the resultant logos were reminiscent of Sea World.

Next: Some of the final sketches

An Incomplete Manifesto for Growth (reprinted)

2008-10-21T19:25:00.000-07:00

I found this on another blog, and traced it back to its origin here.

I think there are some great insights here, which is why I'm reprinting it. But I plan to post my own Creative Roadmap sometime soon.

Incomplete Manifesto for Growth

Written in 1998, the Incomplete Manifesto is an articulation of statements exemplifying Bruce Mau’s beliefs, strategies and motivations. Collectively, they are how we approach every project.

1. Allow events to change you.You have to be willing to grow. Growth is different from something that happens to you. You produce it. You live it. The prerequisites for growth: the openness to experience events and the willingness to be changed by them.

2. Forget about good. Good is a known quantity. Good is what we all agree on. Growth is not necessarily good. Growth is an exploration of unlit recesses that may or may not yield to our research. As long as you stick to good you'll never have real growth.

3. Process is more important than outcome.When the outcome drives the process we will only ever go to where we've already been. If process drives outcome we may not know where we’re going, but we will know we want to be there.

4. Love your experiments (as you would an ugly child).Joy is the engine of growth. Exploit the liberty in casting your work as beautiful experiments, iterations, attempts, trials, and errors. Take the long view and allow yourself the fun of failure every day.

5. Go deep.The deeper you go the more likely you will discover something of value.

6. Capture accidents.The wrong answer is the right answer in search of a different question. Collect wrong answers as part of the process. Ask different questions.

7. Study. A studio is a place of study. Use the necessity of production as an excuse to study. Everyone will benefit.

8. Drift. Allow yourself to wander aimlessly. Explore adjacencies. Lack judgment. Postpone criticism.

9. Begin anywhere. John Cage tells us that not knowing where to begin is a common form of paralysis. His advice: begin anywhere.

10. Everyone is a leader.Growth happens. Whenever it does, allow it to emerge. Learn to follow when it makes sense. Let anyone lead.

11. Harvest ideas. Edit applications. Ideas need a dynamic, fluid, generous environment to sustain life. Applications, on the other hand, benefit from critical rigor. Produce a high ratio of ideas to applications.

12. Keep moving. The market and its operations have a tendency to reinforce success. Resist it. Allow failure and migration to be part of your practice.

13. Slow down. Desynchronize from standard time frames and surprising opportunities may present themselves.

14. Don’t be cool. Cool is conservative fear dressed in black. Free yourself from limits of this sort.

15. Ask stupid questions. Growth is fueled by desire and innocence. Assess the answer, not the question. Imagine learning throughout your life at the rate of an infant.

16. Collaborate. The space between people working together is filled with conflict, friction, strife, exhilaration, delight, and vast creative potential.

17. ____________________. Intentionally left blank. Allow space for the ideas you haven’t had yet, and for the ideas of others.

18. Stay up late. Strange things happen when you’ve gone too far, been up too long, worked too hard, and you're separated from the rest of the world.

19. Work the metaphor. Every object has the capacity to stand for something other than what is apparent. Work on what it stands for.

20. Be careful to take risks. Time is genetic. Today is the child of yesterday and the parent of tomorrow. The work you produce today will create your future.

21. Repeat yourself. If you like it, do it again. If you don’t like it, do it again.

22. Make your own tools.Hybridize your tools in order to build unique things. Even simple tools that are your own can yield entirely new avenues of exploration. Remember, tools amplify our capacities, so even a small tool can make a big difference.

23. Stand on someone’s shoulders.You can travel farther carried on the accomplishments of those who came before you. And the view is so much better.

24. Avoid software. The problem with software is that everyone has it.

25. Don’t clean your desk. You might find something in the morning that you can’t see tonight.

26. Don’t enter awards competitions. Just don’t. It’s not good for you.

27. Read only left-hand pages. Marshall McLuhan did this. By decreasing the amount of information, we leave room for what he called our "noodle."

28. Make new words. Expand the lexicon. The new conditions demand a new way of thinking. The thinking demands new forms of expression. The expression generates new conditions.

29. Think with your mind. Forget technology. Creativity is not device-dependent.

30. Organization = Liberty. Real innovation in design, or any other field, happens in context. That context is usually some form of cooperatively managed enterprise. Frank Gehry, for instance, is only able to realize Bilbao because his studio can deliver it on budget. The myth of a split between "creatives" and "suits" is what Leonard Cohen calls a 'charming artifact of the past.'

31. Don’t borrow money. Once again, Frank Gehry’s advice. By maintaining financial control, we maintain creative control. It’s not exactly rocket science, but it’s surprising how hard it is to maintain this discipline, and how many have failed.

32. Listen carefully. Every collaborator who enters our orbit brings with him or her a world more strange and complex than any we could ever hope to imagine. By listening to the details and the subtlety of their needs, desires, or ambitions, we fold their world onto our own. Neither party will ever be the same.

33. Take field trips. The bandwidth of the world is greater than that of your TV set, or the Internet, or even a totally immersive, interactive, dynamically rendered, object-oriented, real-time, computer graphic–simulated environment.

34. Make mistakes faster. This isn’t my idea -- I borrowed it. I think it belongs to Andy Grove.

35. Imitate.Don’t be shy about it. Try to get as close as you can. You'll never get all the way, and the separation might be truly remarkable. We have only to look to Richard Hamilton and his version of Marcel Duchamp’s large glass to see how rich, discredited, and underused imitation is as a technique.

36. Scat.When you forget the words, do what Ella did: make up something else ... but not words.

37. Break it, stretch it, bend it, crush it, crack it, fold it.

38. Explore the other edge. Great liberty exists when we avoid trying to run with the technological pack. We can’t find the leading edge because it’s trampled underfoot. Try using old-tech equipment made obsolete by an economic cycle but still rich with potential.

39. Coffee breaks, cab rides, green rooms. Real growth often happens outside of where we intend it to, in the interstitial spaces -- what Dr. Seuss calls "the waiting place." Hans Ulrich Obrist once organized a science and art conference with all of the infrastructure of a conference -- the parties, chats, lunches, airport arrivals — but with no actual conference. Apparently it was hugely successful and spawned many ongoing collaborations.

40. Avoid fields.Jump fences. Disciplinary boundaries and regulatory regimes are attempts to control the wilding of creative life. They are often understandable efforts to order what are manifold, complex, evolutionary processes. Our job is to jump the fences and cross the fields.

41. Laugh.People visiting the studio often comment on how much we laugh. Since I've become aware of this, I use it as a barometer of how comfortably we are expressing ourselves.

42. Remember.Growth is only possible as a product of history. Without memory, innovation is merely novelty. History gives growth a direction. But a memory is never perfect. Every memory is a degraded or composite image of a previous moment or event. That’s what makes us aware of its quality as a past and not a present. It means that every memory is new, a partial construct different from its source, and, as such, a potential for growth itself.

43. Power to the people.Play can only happen when people feel they have control over their lives. We can't be free agents if we’re not free.

PowerPoint Training (5 of 5): 10 Steps to Presentations without Hesitation

2008-10-02T07:39:00.000-07:00

Presenting can be difficult. Any PowerPoint product is made stronger through the addition of tips to the presenter, to help him or her feel more comfortable in presenting. Here are some highlighting some tips and techniques I recommend for the new presenter to help him or her present more effectively.

1. Stay mobile. Moving around helps keep people attention focussed, and actively participating. This is especially important for
younger audiences

2. Make eye contact. This is the best tool for maintaining a personal connection with each participant.

3. Be enthusiastic. Show your interest in the subject and passion for the communication and the energy will communicate.

4. Connect conversationally with your audience. The presentation is just like a conversation, not a speech. Encourage the presenter to talk using the points in the slide, but not just reading the points in the slide. Don’t use a script, as much as a rough outline from which you can extrapolate conversationally.

5. Rehearse. Once the presenter knows what she wants to say, she should practice in real time, out loud, not just in her head. This helps you to be aware of the time, and avoid elements that can trip you up.

6. Know the material. This should be encouragement to read through the TE and become familiar with the specific topic.

7. Encourage response. Allowing for times when the presentation can become a conversation can loosen everyone up.
Get equipment early and set up early.

8. Make sure everyone can see the screen, and that the presenter can see everyone.

9. Make it real. Relate the topic to specifics will make it more interesting for Participant and Presenter.

10. Be flexible. Once you;ve rehearsed and rehearsed and got the presentation down, be ready with a couple of planned “stalls.” These will help you in case of the presentation being delayed, or equipment failure in mid-stream, or the presentation going much shorter than you anticipated. Small canned jokes about the subject matter, which presenters will typically start a presentation with, can also be useful in pocket to pull out at these awkward junctures.

PowerPoint Training (4 of 5): Seven goals in creating an effective presentation.

2008-09-23T08:01:00.000-07:00

1. Make it readable
Point size must be readable for the proposed space. If an individual is to view the presentation on a computer screen in front of him, it need not be as large as a show intended to be viewed from the back row of an auditorium. If delivery can’t be determined, there are some good middle-ground standards.

2. Use visuals to focus attention
Images can be distracting, but also work to focus attention. Individuals (who read) will read the content in the first second or two. The presenter must then be relied on to hold the viewers attention on the screen, and on the content, while the extrapolation and detailed content delivery occurs. The right images can help keep the participant focussed on the screen, and thereby on the presentation.

3. Deliver content simply
Know the audience, and a delivery system that is best for them. While animations might be distracting for an older audience, for a younger audience it can be a tool to hold attention. Therefore it’s essential to know who the presentation is designed to reach.

4. Deliver content consistently
As mentioned, templates not only help with ease of building PowerPoint shows, but consistent delivery also helps with messaging.

5. Keep it simple
If the content starts building on a particular slide, question if it should be two slides. Remember that the attention given to an individual slide will wane. The longer that slide is up on the screen, the more participants will look away, and become distracted. But put a new slide on the screen, and the attention of the participants can be likewise refreshed. Avoid having to linger for too long on any individual point on any individual slide, unless there are some elements that move on the screen, and thereby “refresh” the audiences attention.

6. Make it memorable
There are 3 keys to making a compelling, memorable slide:
• Use only 3-7 words
• Use active verbs (ideally start with an active verb)
• Keep the slide focused.

7. Keep the show short
The flip side to breaking out slides is to not have too many slides. One way to help with this is to compartmentalize a large presentation into sections, and provide an agenda at the start. One really great graphic method of helping viewers determine where they are in the paradigm of the presentation is to provide a little navigation bar, at the bottom or the side of the slide, providing wayfinding orientation, much like a website. But as important as it is to let the participant know where he/she is in the presentation, it's also important that they not get lost along the way, in too many slides.

PowerPoint Training (3 of 5): Six Reasons to use a PowerPoint Template and a Slide Library

2008-09-22T12:06:00.000-07:00

1. Consistent delivery. PowerPoint is all about consistency, and tools to help enforce consistency, as a tool for focusing content. This allows for delivery of information, within definable and organized parameters.

2. Templates allow you to take advantage of a Pre-Built Slide Library.
A library of slides is an invaluable creation tool. The more Slide Types that can be identified up front, the more streamlined the creation process can become.

3. Templates with a Slide library add Drag and drop slide functionality.
With templates built to the same design allows simple drag-and-drop functionality within the formatted slides that would not be available for slides pulled from templates outside of the RHB template.

4. Easy production of a lesson from scratch.
All of these elements combine to create a workflow that makes it easy to set up a consistent lesson. This is especially true if you are creating a product with multiple PowerPoint presentations, or developing a sales force who need to deliver multiple different presentations on different aspects of a large product line.

5. Slides can be created with Pre-built functionality.
The animations and functionality can be built right in. Complicated animations and reveals can be built once, then repurposed. This amortizes the cost of creating complex (and often very interesting) slides,which makes for better presentations.

6. Creates, over time, a reduction of work.
Again, the more slides you make from scratch, the more you can add to your library. The bigger your library, the fewer slides you need to create from scratch later on. Again to use the example of a sales force, if a salesman builds a new slide for a new product, (or more likely has a staff designer with PowerPoint savvy do so) then that slide can be easily added to a library that can be distributed to all of the sales force. Such a library is easily updated, small and therefore easily (digitally) portable, and distributable.

The Point of PowerPoint (2 of 5): Building design consistency

2008-09-18T15:08:00.000-07:00

The first big time-saver is to build a usable, and re-usable, template.

If produce one of something, it’s unique. If you produce two, it’s a pair, but not necessarily a consistency. Make three or more of something, and you’ve begun to define consistency, and that's the core of good design. People like consistency, and it’s what PowerPoint was designed for. So, in order to build a solid template, you have to have enough of a volume of the types of slides you'll typically see in order to solidly develop consistency.

A great start toward establishing consistency between more than one PowerPoint presentation, and thereby developing or promoting an identity, is to build a reusable template. A good template can save hours of work, and consistent use of a template facilitates reuse of slides from a slide library.

Consistency in a presentation allows the participant to focus on the content, because the framework for that content is a consistent “box”— a frame that provides context, but by remaining the same, does not call attention to itself. This familiar framework offers a lot of benefits—but first I should address the dangers.

The templates which come standard with PowerPoint most often feel like they were designed by Mondrian, if Mondrian was a colorblind dyslexic. As a result, many “out of the box” PowerPoint presentations are garish, and poorly designed in terms of color selection, based entirely on the template. And as a result, there is a thriving business in the selling of PowerPoint backgrounds, for those without the savvy to create one on their own, with any image manipulation software. But even then, the ability to create a background doesn’t infer the design ability to create an effective one. I’ll get into that in one of the future installments.

With the design issues in mind, once you have an attractive and effective identity created, in the form of a n attractive and workable background, there are still other elements to apply, toward consistency. PowerPoint templates consist of a Master Slide, which have Master Slide styles (including footer styles) , and Notes Page Styles. Using these elements regularly and in the same manner, and using templates that share the same characteristics as a “set,” can help ensure 3 things:

• Consistent placement
Text elements in terms of font choice, hierarchy and placement can be set on a Master Page in the PowerPoint document.

• Consistent identity
Master pages can be set up with text sizes and image placements that assure consistent identity. This includes color and specialized graphic effects beyond the standard templates Microsoft packages with the program. Using the Master Page consistently and exclusively assures that the identity will be consistent.

• Ease of use
A properly built template is easy to create new slides in. This allows the writer to focus on the content, and not the formatting. Of course, the key to this is to have prebuilt formatting in the template that covers 80-90% of the writer’s content needs.

And you’re on your way.

The Point of PowerPoint (1 of 5): Thinking before Inking.

2008-09-16T15:00:00.000-07:00

“Think before you ink” is an old expression I picked up in my comic book days, speaking to the fact that a good comic book inker had to be a strong artist, not just a “tracer of pencil lines.” A good inker thinks before he inks, and knows the marks he needs to make in order to make an effective product. And like so many things in comics, that’s an analogy for almost anything. Before a presenter starts building a presentation, essentially putting ink to paper, the thinking needs to be there.

And that thinking needs to answer 2 core questions.

What is the Point?
The “point” of a PowerPoint show is to communicate information. To do this you need to follow some simple rules for visual presentation. You need to build your show with:
• Clear readability
• Clear communication
• Ease of use (and not over-use)

What is the Focus?
The “focus” of a PowerPoint is different from the point, for our purposes. For this, we’ll define the focus as “what do you want the participant to walk away from this with?” There is a specific point to each slide, and to the presentation as a whole. To keep the focus clear, you need to be sure that you:

• Keep the viewers attention. It’s inevitable that in a presentation attention will wander. Viewers of all ages look to understand what the point is, but if the feel they’ve gotten it, their attention will wander. If you hand out a printout of all the slides in a presentation, inevitably there will come a point in each and every slide when the audience member with this in hand, will look to see what the next slide is, even though the speaker hasn’t finished speaking on the current slide. This is a signal that the participant feels he or she has gleaned the point, and is anxious to move on to the next point. This is an area where (when not overdone) animation and imagery can help—in keeping the participant focussed on the slide, and thereby glean more from the content.

• Don’t overwrite the slide. If a slide has several bullets, consider making it two slides. According to a study by the US Navy, the average adults attention span is 18 minutes. Ideally for a PowerPoint presentation, that would be broken down into chunks of about 2-4 minutes per slide. If a slide is overwritten or takes longer than 5 minutes, you can count on having lost your audience’s attention at some point in there.

• Plan the content as more than what is read. Content should introduce the idea, and allow the speaker to extrapolate, or you lose the participant’s attention. The participant can read faster than the presenter can talk. If the speaker is merely reading what is on the screen, and adding nothing, you're going to have a room full of bored participants. You'd have been better served emailing the presentation.

•Give the audience something to look at. I'm not talking about extra bells and whistles, or distracting images, or useless clip art. Give the audience images with impact, that point to, emphasize, and work with the content. A picture really is worth a thousand words, and in an environment where you don't want a thousand words, they are especially valuable. This is where my own area of experience comes in—in creating visuals that highlight the content in a dramatic way, and thereby creates an environment where the participant is more likely to get the point, and walk away with the point securely in pocket.

With those overarching goals, getting into the specifics of “how” can provide some shortcuts to making a PowerPoint presentation simple. effective, and attractive.

Observations on the Teen Demographic (Part 3 of 3): Talk with me, not at me: The importance of interactivity

2008-09-01T19:36:00.000-07:00

Television and print media are traditionally “push” media; uni-directional with predefined “receiver” structures. In contrast to this, one of the major appeals of the internet is its ability to function in the same way with traditional “push” content, but also, more importantly to work interactively with viewers, and provide “pull” content. This interactive engagement of the viewer, getting the kids into acquiring information and directing the course of their learning, creates a sense of community and personal involvement. Kids tale part in gaining education, and in participating, value what they’ve gained.

A personal aside: I learned as a child one of the keys to a strong education is a perception of education as something you take, not something that is ”given” to you. That is, if you have a teacher that is un-engaging, and delivering material that is uninteresting in an “easy” class, it remains the responsibility of the student to try and dig something out of the hours spent in class. Especially in college, where every hour in class represents an investment of cash, I could never understand the glee in others eyes at a teacher not delivering, or, on occasion, not showing up. Sure, you get credit for the class. But you don’t get the value that the credit you paid for was supposed to represent. How can you image that you’re “getting over” by not having to have a class because the teacher doesn’t show? As a concept, it still blows my mind. But this is not a popular attitude, and one that’s difficult to spread. But the internet seems to be doing it quite well—if a site does not deliver, it does not get clicked-through, and opportunity for deeper diving and increased communication is lost.

But as the interactive communication offered on the internet becomes more popular, and even expected, it becomes difficult for traditional print media to echo, and complete. The interactivity can be mimicked to a certain extent in print publications through interactive activities like quizzes, discussion questions, and group activities. Notably, teen girl magazines are increasing their level of interactivity as well in this way; this will probably further escalate with the intense magazine competition that exists. Young male magazines such as Maxim also are following this paradigm.

In schools, there has been a shift from lecture-oriented teaching to cooperative work (broadcast model vs. interactive model), again allowing students to participate in knowledge acquisition. I myself am engaged in acquiring my Masters in Graphic Design through an online course, because of the flexibility it affords. This method of teaching is becoming more prevalent even in the least technologically savvy school districts. In an era where interactivity, cooperative learning and higher thinking skills are becoming so important, it’s a good idea to consider how we can possibly incorporate these teaching methods into publications and print as well.

Style of visual presentation can have a big effect on reader involvement. It’s a confirmation of the intuitive response that an anonymous author (one that just lists facts, describes things as happening to neither the author nor the reader directly) is much less appealing and involving for the reader than a “visible” author, one who creates an I-you relationship with the reader (as opposed to an I-it relationship). The bottom line is that the importance of talking to the reader, or more appropriately, engaging the reader in a conversation as part of the process, and really creating an engaging conversation, is becoming an essential part of assuring interactivity in print media. That is, talking to the reader, not at the reader, is a key, essential distinction—and one that is not easily achieved.

Observations on the Teen Demographic (Part 2 of 3): The Birth of Generation Digital

2008-07-10T18:42:00.000-07:00

The current generation of teens are firmly in what some analysts have called the “digital generation” or “Net generation.” They've grown up entrenched in digital and electronic technology and its effects on the media. Images in the TV and films they watch, in the magazines they read, and in the ads on all of the above which are aimed specifically at them are sophisticated, glossy, impressively sophisticated, and rapid fire.

They’ve received more exposure to computers than most of us probably did at their age; even if they don’t get hands-on usage regularly, talk of computers and the Internet is everywhere, with a majority of students anticipating having to use computers in their jobs and feeling that schools aren’t teaching them enough of what they’ll need to know. To get an idea of how quickly things are changing, it’s good to keep in mind that the transition from exclusively print media to a world saturated by electronic media has happened in less than a century. Estimates of computer and Internet usage are reflecting this kind of exponential growth pattern.

Computer technology has helped drive shifting educational paradigms. Our schools are slowly moving from the traditional broadcast teaching style (an authority dispensing information uni-directionally) to a more interactive approach where cooperative learning is being utilized, allowing students to participate in their own acquisition of knowledge. This shift is still underway and slow, but it’s receiving more and more attention and priority as research confirms its effectiveness.

At the same time, it’s good to keep in mind that, even though teens are living in a more technology-saturated world than older generations grew up in, the basic emotional challenges of fitting in, becoming independent, managing familial, friendly and romantic relationships are much the same. Today’s teens still worry about these things, in addition to grades, getting a good job, dating and peer pressure issues.

On the other hand, these teens have also been raised with the specters of cancer, HIV, and other modern plagues hanging over them, and with the growing sense of responsibility caused by the generally held belief that risks for many of the illnesses or tragedies that befall humans can be prevented or minimized.

The challenge then, is to create products that appeal to these teens, with all these other issues in mind. In order to create products in forms that this generation can relate to, are used to using, and that appeal to them, we need to teach them in ways they’re used to learning. More and more, that may mean questioning traditional instructional methods. Students are growing up digitally and as a result they learn differently.

• Over 80% of teens 13-17 use a computer at least once a week; 1/4 self-reporting as “techno-whizzes,” 28% as moderate techies.
• Surveys indicate no gender difference among teens in in-school and out-of-school computer use, including e-mail, chat rooms and school work, although teen boys visit significantly more Web sites than girls do.
• Other surveys show that girls are still not as interested as boys in a career in computers/technology. However, teen boys and girls report equal levels of confidence in their computer skills.
• A 2000 research study found that marketing is the online focus for girls; for boys, programming. While girls are reading online magazines, sending e-greetings, etc., 74% of boys are downloading free software.
• Kids are becoming self-publishers on Internet, running own sites and mailing lists, etc. It's not uncommon for high school students to make money designing Web pages or programming computers.
• Some sites offering “supervised discussions and programs like online summer camps.”
•"Virtually every major consumer magazine now visualizes the web not as a potential rival but as a potential ally." This is especially true of teen magazines -- such as Teen People -- and fashion magazines. They expand on their content on their Web site, which can be updated more frequently (e.g. daily).

Observations on the Teen Demographic (Part 1 of 3): Who are you?

2008-07-09T18:27:00.000-07:00

In America, you are not selling if you are not tapping the teen market.

There were 30 million teens in the U.S. by 2006. In 1999 it was documented that people under 18 made up 26% of the population. As you can tell by any night on television, and any movie marquis, and any newsstand, that’s a huge chunk of the population, and by percentage on of the largest with a disposable income. Therefore, they are a target. Their most persistent suitors, outside of television and movie advertisers, are the mavens of the teen magazine market. They learn hard lessons about what it takes to get a teen’s attention in just a few seconds, and keep it from month to month, because their livelihood, and their very existence, relies on that understanding. From a publishing perspective (even as a designer for a publisher which does not sell directly to the demographic) it’s equally important.

I do little these days to sell to teens, but in my last 2 jobs it was essential to understand this demographic and how to communicate with them. So I got some goods and nowhere to go with it. This next series of blogs will explore some elements key to communicating with this teen demographic, from my perspective and experience, gleaned from exposure to the elements of popular culture they are inundated with.

First and foremost, we need to keep in mind that there really isn’t one teen reader or audience. The teen population is extremely diverse. Aside from similar emotional and physical development stages, there is tremendous racial/ethnic, cultural and social diversity (the racial/ethnic proportions in our country are undergoing rapid and drastic changes now and in the near future). However, more than ever, styles of fashion, music and language are becoming more accessible to teens across the country and around the world because of TV, radio and the Internet; no longer are Californian or New York teens light years ahead of teens in the Midwest.

In every part of the country, Teens are living in an increasingly diverse population, racially and ethnically. Also, there are many social groups within any teen community. Caution should be used not to lump everyone together or assume homogeneity within the age range. Diversity must be acknowledged.

Inclusivity and diversity are thought to reach the biggest audience in marketing to teens. Teens these days, and increasingly in the future, are living in an increasingly multicultural nation. Not only that, but the proportions of those varying cultures are changing. In 1999, 65% of U.S. children were white, non-Hispanic. Since, taking Hispanic population as an example, the number of Hispanic children had increased faster than that of any other ethnic group. They were 9% of the child population in 1980, 16% in 1999. By 2020, it is projected that more than 1 in 5 children will be of Hispanic origin. By 2050, non-Hispanic Whites are expected to decrease to less than 53% of the population.

Such demographic changes are reflected in popular culture in the increasing prevalence of television programs that feature diversity, without calling attention to that diversity. Shows such as Greys Anatomy feature an ethnically diverse cast, without ever having that diversity showcased as part of the plot.

What this means in terms of imagery in product is that it’s quite different from 10 years ago. Then it was a difficult thing to find images of diverse teens in a group. Now using anything but fully diverse images feel inauthentic, which is the worst mistake to make in communicating with this demographic.

Next: The Birth of Generation Digital

On redesigning an existing logo (Part 2 of 2)

2008-05-12T09:45:00.000-07:00

On occasion, say when a company or brand is purchased by another company, there may be a sales or marketing cal to unify the branding. This is positioned as in the interest of sales, so that the customer can understand that a product is now part of this family. I’ve heard this issue actually softened by a marketing rep who said that a logo needed “not necessarily to feel like a brother, but at least like a distant cousin.”

I take it as a given that there are families of which are of a family, and which therefore need to have a resemblance. But these logos still should—no, really must—allow for some discrimination. The goal of these grouped identities would be to say, "these products are related, a family, but each has a particular unique and distinguishing flavor," which are typified by the unique elements of that logo.

Logo design, then, adds authenticity to the business and the identity by communicating uniqueness, quality, and quite simply, what is remarkable about a particular brand, versus another. This identity is what provides the "peanut butter" for the branding, creating instant recognition and drawing a new customers attention as well as pulling a satisfied customer back, sticking to the roof of their collective mouths, and providing distinct flavor.

Given these assumptions, a recent comment I overheard saying a logo looks "too different" from its family seems antithetical. Again, having a family of logos is one thing, but moving a logo away from unique branding to gain that family identification is the opposite of branding. Creation of a family of logos should never occur at the expense of its communication that the product featured is something different, and something special in its own right. Ultimately, each logo must stand alone, and stand for something, in order to justify its existence as a separate logo, or entity, or imprint. If it's not communicating something different, a way that it is unique from other products of its kind in the market, even other products within it's own family, then what is the purpose for its existence as a separate logo? Again, it comes down to the communication goal.

Comparing a proposed new logo on a product against the current logo as it stands speaks volumes to the core issues: Does it maintain a connection to the current brand identity in the mind of the buyers? Does it communicate the uniqueness of the brand? Does it speak to the core value of the product?

If the reason for changes in a logo are not to enhance the brand or uniqueness, but to increase the sameness of the mark to fall more in line with the other logos in the family highlights a core error of homogenization. Ultimately, such efforts are the death of uniqueness within a brand identity. The ultimate purpose of redesigning a logo to fit within a family should be to create a family of individuals, and even as designers work to unify that family, it should not be at the expense of the very real market cost of losing their uniqueness.

On redesigning an existing logo (Part 1 of 2)

2008-03-26T04:14:00.000-07:00

From a design perspective, my understanding of logo design goals are to communicate uniqueness and speak to how a particular product is not only different from other products, but better. There was a piece recently on NPR's Morning Edition that captured this goal in a nutshell, which I have been unable to uncover since, but was highly relevant. It discussed the purpose of logos in terms of recognizability, and what a logo is intended to communicate in that recognition.

Logos highlight a company name and the services it has to offer to it customers, and most importantly, creates recognition of its goods among the consumer and client community. Companies and purchasers visually associate logos with a brand identity, much as we associate a picture of our house as the place we live, our office as the place we work, without having to read the address every time. Logos create identity, and at the core of identity is the idea of specificity and uniqueness; I live here and not there, I work here and not there, and I want this product and not that one, because this one is better. And all that is communicated not in the text, but in the context and subtext, and completely visually.

So, it’s a unique opportunity, to say the least, to develop an existing logo in a new direction. As with all major design projects, the most important question to answer is, what do you want to accomplish. It’s not to make a cool logo. At least, not that alone. The answer lies in answering, what is the purpose of the redesigned identity? What is it trying to present?

If the logo is to create an identity that says "this product is the same as these other products, just with another name," then the purpose of the logos, and the communication, might be served through mimicry. But that’s seldom a worthwhile design goal. A better way to think about echoing an existing logo is to define why it’s supposed to be like something else. Pepsi is like Coke-look at the logos side-by-side and you’ll see the similarities-but different. The similarity is in that they are selling the same idea, smooth cool refreshment, good taste, good times. But it’s the distinguishing differences that make all the difference—the how they present those ideas-that creates identity and specificity.

More Designing for Middle School: Talking at their level, lying over their heads

2008-03-03T09:56:00.000-08:00

Communicating to this demographic is also about talking up to them, but at their own level. Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.

My point is, there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek in communicating effectively with this age group. The most popular types of shows for middle schoolers are ones in which the authority figures are not as smart as the kids they rule over. Kids know best. Kids rule. And in these scenarios, kids make mistakes, but the mistakes are resolved by them, and they learn from them. But in the end, the constant in these shows is that the kids know best.

Kids this age are remarkably media-savvy. They’ve learned not to believe everything they see in print, and know that they are being lied to, to some degree, and that not everything the see (on the internet, and through self publishing and gossip-type blogs) in print is true. They are therefore cynical about the messages they receive in general. You have to avoid the hard sell, because they can tell a lemon when it’s just painted like a grapefruit. They won’t believe an assertion just because it is presented to them. Only facts and authenticity to back it up can convince.

This means portraying real diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender, with imagery that is inclusive. All the kids in the images should not be of perfect weight, or glasses-free, or with perfectly coifed heads. It means being aware of real trends, not merely the broad-stroked caricatures of Goths and skaters, hip-hop and prep that marks Hollywood shorthand of the 90’s. It means trying to be real.

But at the same time, like everyone, they want to receive messages that they can believe, in an aspirational way. This leads therefore to a form of visual flattery of this age group that we see in popular television, which presents schools in a glamorous light. Even if the school is dopey, and kids rule the school, the kids are all similarly well-dressed, and the homes are all comfortably middle class, and the hallways are immaculate. This is the world as they wish and might expect it to be, never mind how it really is. And the kids who often play middle schoolers on television are often of an older age range. But kids will not call them on this. Because the actors look like the viewers want to look, and are perceived as the viewers want to be perceived. They aspire to what they see, and draw the authenticity from that perspective. Lie to me, as long as they are lies I want to believe.

From a design perspective, this often plays into using models in photo shoots who are, for example, firmly at the upper end of the demographic. The kids can look average-and to keep authenticity, ideally should not be perceived as model-types-but not truly, awkwardly, geekily average. Average, as they want to be perceived; average, as a cool standard.

Designing for Middle School

2008-02-25T04:58:00.000-08:00

Visuals are key in designing for this demographic. But not just any visuals. They need to be loud, and moving, kinetic, colorful and exciting. These ain’t your grandfather’s design standards.

There’s an argument—not necessarily a good or valid one, but one I’ve heard defended—that design becomes less essential to communication as the audience older. Babies need messages entirely comprised of shape and color and vibrancy as content, while adults are drawn to messages with entirely textual content. That argument aside, the underlying strength for me therein is that it’s a given that strong design is important to essential for a younger audience. While you can make an argument for the power and efficiency of communicating content through text, it’s a given that if you can’t read the textual content, or are less receptive to it, and that therefore your first entrée into the content is through the visual. It’s through how the message is arranged before you. It’s about the design.

Design for middle schoolers is a key juncture in the paradigm between the need for an entirely visually communicative message like a picture book, and fully written content. Design is essential in understanding this audience, and I would argue that poorly designed messages, however appropriate in terms of written content, won’t get through the metaphorical front door if not presented in a strong design.

It’s important to maintain a focus on fun, and energy. The middle school aged generation, as has been the case for the several generations before, has been heavily influenced by bright television graphics, quickly-imparted messages, and a quick-in, quick-out storytelling of music videos, commercials, video games and cartoons. Some critics have claimed that this has led this generation to shorter attention spans, boredom and ADD. A converse argument to this could be that middle schoolers are developing a visual sense that lets them multi-process information in a way that generations before them couldn’t. To the preceeding generations, this might seem over-burdening o a too young mind, because such concepts would have been—or maybe even still are—too much for a more mature mind to easily wrap around.

This ties in to some degree to my previous post—parents and teachers, and older generations assuming a lower level of ability in a child’s mind than the child is actually able to achieve. Having too high expectations for children is seen as a major detriment to self esteem. But boredom ain’t such a feel-good element, either.

It’s an unfortunate but arguable trend that marketers seem to be the ones who are aware of harvesting the flexibility of the middle school and pre-teen mind, moreso than many teachers or parents. To see this in action, try having a child train an adult in the latest, high level of a PS3 game, and watch who gets bored or frustrated first.

But I digress. The design point of this post is that the key functionality of design for middle schoolers is vibrancy, energy, and movement. It’s not the clean line aesthetic of Frank Lloyd Wright, but the colorful chaos of Chucky Cheeze.

But that’s not to say that visual chaos can stay chaotic. There must be an underlying organization to the kinetic energy playing across the visual framework. It’s the idea of the “crying baby” again. You need the crying baby to get the attention of this audience, but once that attention is drawn away from the other crying babies on the shelf or on the rack, there must be clear organization to bring understanding to the message, and keep the kids interest. Or he or she will move on to the next crying baby that does allow entry. The brightest, liveliest visual must also be absolutely clear and directive, to hold the interest it draws. If they have to work too hard for it, they will move on.

Designing for Parents

2008-02-21T15:25:00.000-08:00

Parents generally underestimate the maturity of their children, likely as much as children over-estimate their own maturity. That’s only natural, but it's something that designers have to look out for, and be aware of.

Several key target audience surveys demonstrate significant gaps between kids’ perceptions of themselves and their peers, and parent’s perception of the same. For example, parents of middle school students think the kids’ priorities are having fun, looking good, and having friends. The priorities selected by those kids, on the other hand, are family matters, schoolwork and, most importantly, their future. And there are other key elements where this perspective varies, such as sex. 52% of middle school parents think the opposite sex is of interest to their child, while over 60% of middle school kids say the same. This is likely most significant for those parents whose kids are in that 60%. But the fact is that most parents underestimate their child’s interest in the opposite sex, and relationships of both an emotional and physical nature.

This discrepancy highlights one of the key issues in demographic testing, in my opinion. One of the unique gifts of the focus group leaders in my experience has been their ability to solicit opinions by talking about some representational “other” that, of course, includes no one in the room. Which, of course, by inference, it does. For example, 70% of parents think other parent’s are doing a good job, with only about a quarter of parents thinking “other” parents are doing a less than stellar job.

About the same amount of the general population, that is, parents’ and non-parents, think it is “very common” to find good role models among other parents. Kids, however, give parents an understandably higher grade; over 30% of middle school kids think that parents are generally communicative, and only 11% feel that their parents value their jobs more than their time with their kids.

Breaking this down in terms of design is difficult. My interpretation, from experience in design and children’s books market, is that parents want aspirational design for their kids; that is, products which speak to the best in their kids. Kids want things that speak up to them, without speaking over their heads. So one of the key elements is to design up to the kids, but not over where the parents perceive their kids are. That’s the crux and the hardest point to achieve.

Popular media reflects this dichotomy. Parents perceive what their kids watch as beneath them, while purveyors of media seek to deliver what kids want, and let the audience ratings speak for themselves. If it weren’t what people wanted, it likely wouldn’t stay on very long. But that’s not to say it’s necessarily good for them. Generally, 14% of parents of 2-5 year olds see children’s TV as “generally positive,” and 60% of parents of kids 2-17 years old feel that TV has “done more good than harm.” On the other hand, 24% of parents say their children watch inappropriate programming either “sometimes” of “a great deal,” and about the same amount say that their kids watch “too much TV.”

Internet access and its appropriateness is a close second to children’s TV as a parent’s topic. 20% express concern for their children’s exposure. As kids get older, parent’s concerns spread into music and music lyrics, video games, and movies. All these are elements of a child’s unsupervised time, and the result of discretionary income.

In terms of design, I've generally found the product I’ve worked on for kids couldn’t take advantage of this discretionary attention, as that product is typically filtered through the design expectations of parents and school officials who are the buyers. If it doesn't get by the filter, it doesn't get to the target.

A very recent example of this has been on a series of cover concepts designed by my design team and I. They were reviewed by a group of teachers, and the results saw a clear favorite. However, weeks later, we stumbled onto the opportunity to have the same covers reviewed by a group of kids from the target audience. What I discovered from that on second review was that the images that I assumed would have a stronger pull to kids as the target were in fact, better liked by them. And the more “staid” designs that were created specifically to appeal to teachers and administrators were, in fact, preferred by teachers and administrators. But these were not the same covers. Even though the teacehrs were selecting "for" the kids, we again we fall into the same trap of “other”— teachers who say they might like design A better (and so choose A), but feel like the kids would like design B better. But the kids subsequently choose design A. And that’s a mindset it is difficult to disabuse.

In short, designing through a “filter” audience such as teachers or parents can be difficult in a print media, but there’s no other game in town. Very young audiences access the web via parents and teachers, and only older kids with discretionary income can access certain media designed for them, on their own. But in creating magazines, storybooks, textbooks, workbooks, or other materials intended to entertain and inform kids, you must first design to the parents or teachers, and through them, to the intended target.

Designing for Gen Y: Conclusions without contusions

2007-06-20T17:20:00.000-07:00

Okay, here are some major conclusions I drew from a presentation by the CCT (CSAP Communications Team) at a hip-hop summit, which contained significant research on teen trends and put it into a generational perspective. This is a long one. If I'd known I'd have this long a list, I likely would have made this a 4 part series. Twenty-twenty hindsight. Anyway, these conclusions are couched from a design perspective. And they represent my personal observations and conclusions, and the presentation.

1) Teen trends define popular culture. It’s a given that the teens of today will be the leaders of tomorrow. From that perspective, we can evaluate past social trends which moved from the fringes to the mainstream: rock and roll in the 50’s, the peace movement and student activism of the 60’s, etc. Generations define themselves, by self-identifying themselves as a member of that generation, as opposed to another. The key “generations” identified by CCT were:

• Baby Boomers (1946-1960)
• Generation X (1960-1982)
• Generation Y (1982-2003).

Personally, what I note here is the generality of the groupings. The first is just 14-year block, the next a grouping of 22 years, and the last also 22 years. I think the first block (boomers) is more accurate, and in reality believe we are dealing with 2 demographics within each of the following GenX and GenY groupings. But that’s me.

The design application here is that different imagery, and even color palettes, appeal to these different age groupings (whether they would admit it or not). This is evidenced by aspects such as fashion preferences, colors of clothing and makeup marketed to different age groups within these demos, and a hundred other subtle shifts that marketers identify, but hope the rest of the public won’t. And that designers must.

2) Identifying teen trends provides an avenue to enhanced communication.
This is just common sense; if you can understand the values of an audience (in this context a specific generation), you can more effectively communicate with that audience (generation). In terms of design, this means the type of images you provide, the age ranges, and the looks of that audience.

This is one of the major problems with stock imagery—it’s pretty old in general, and the look of the least expensive imagery is often 10 years old. While this isn’t problematic for younger age groups (kids 7 and under look surprisingly the same in generation after generation, down t the color palette of their clothes), in older age groups and especially in teens, images taken a year ago can already look dated. By the same token, images that try to look too trendy can get outdated even faster. The key here is to go with a timeless feel, but within the context of popular culture. Go for modern hip-hop looks, but not too cutting edge within that look. Allow for the timelessness of Goth, Sk8r dude, and fashionable teens as well as straighter hip-hop looks. And mix and match, with authenticity.

Frankly the best place to tell if you’re hitting the mark in these elements are to tour a local Wal Mart or Target or Kmart, or any of the other stores that try to pull in and appeal to the same demographic. You don’t need to be cutting edge. But you do need to be real.

3) The key features of a generation are always value-based.
This was a key element of the CCT presentation, and I think a truism for any demographic. The key values of a specific demo, once identified and broken down, will always have design applications. Again, core values include:
— Self-reliance (Value independent thinking, do-it-yourself approach)
— Idealism(positive about future, see great future opportunities)
— Activism (support for social issues, see role in improving world)
— Morality/Spirituality (importance of faith, not necessarily linked to formal groups)
— Authenticity (want truths without distortion)
— Identity (tension of conformity and individualism)

4) Longevity of message is achieved by appeal to core values.
Just as formulating effective designed messages relies on identifying and understanding teen trends, effecting change relies on the messages ability to connect with core values.

5) Hip-Hop is a dominant teen trend.
Not necessarily the teen trend, but arguably one of the top five, if not top three. I think this will vary according to what part of the country you travel (or market, or design) to. This was the central assumption of the summit, and is supported by the CCT research package. While it is not the only teen trend, it is defined overwhelmingly as the dominant trend. And, even though it has been a trend for well over a decade, it shows no sign of diminishing or being replaced. From this perspective, it’s a mistake not to look to connecting with this demographic more specifically in any visual
communication.

6) Sincerity in communication is essential.
Insincerity is a killer. Anyone who has ever seen a teen’s reaction to an adult comic trying to rap has an idea of the discomforting squeamishness that’s provoked, much the same discomfort as experienced by any parent seeing a young girl croon a Britney Spears sex ballad. It’s something beyond the singers’ experience, and just plain wrong. Communication with a youth demographic should be painfully sincere, and checked for that sincerity at key points with aspects of the actual demographic, whenever possible.

This isn’t to say that it’s impossible to fake it within design. Some of the most convincing kids artwork I’ve seen was created by adults, mimicking the key aspects of kids art. But it has to be done with real kids art reference on hand, not from “feel.” It needs to be compared to that for authenticity. The same, for another example, with graffiti-style design. It needs to be compared to the realistic context in order to be sure it feels authentic and sincere. I’ve seen both these examples done well and effectively, as well as poorly and insincerely. The key is being able to know the demographic well enough to tell that difference.

Next week: Thoughts on Branding and Identity

Designing for Generation Y (2 of 3): Four Ps in a blog

2007-06-16T15:56:00.000-07:00

The diagram below is basic to marketing 101: The Four Ps of Social Marketing. Not much here in terms of design (except that it is a nicely designed diagram-for which I can’t take credit), but its core messages of identifying and using the Four Ps of Social Marketing are as essential for Design as they are for Marketing.

Product. You need to know the product to know why and how it appeals to your target, and design it to accentuate that appeal. In comics, I called it the “screaming baby factor.” All comics are arranged on a rack, like a line of screaming babies. You can’t get your baby to scream any louder in order to get picked up. It’s got to scream differently, better, somehow more personally to the target, to get him or her to pick that baby up.

Price. Not in the control of Design, unless we’re talking about how to accentuate the difference (savings) in price from comparable product, and how to position it so that this accentuation isn’t obvious. Like a website that doesn’t easily reveal its navigation system, a package that hides its pricing just annoys.

Promotion. The design element here is mainly in terms of persuasion, and again often in tandem with price.

Place. Design aspects here mainly lie in the contextual text—say how its arranged on a cover so that the key text is revealed on a rack, or how its arranged on a box so that it calls out in its best screaming baby voice amongst all the other products on the shelves.

Of course, using the Four Ps requires understanding the demographic you’re appealing to, and some experience in design language to know what is most appropriate to that segment. But the research is out there. The art is in the interpretation.

Next: Some conclusions

Designing for Generation Y (1 of 3)

2007-06-12T15:18:00.000-07:00

A couple of years ago I attended a Hip-Hop Conference in Washington DC, with the goal of learning about the specific Hip-Hop demographic, which is not exactly an age group or ethnic demographic. The goal was achieving cultural competence and developing communication strategies with the specific demographic, for me specifically in developing design, imagery and visual identity.

First, I don’t even want to get into the whole Generation Y debate. Generation Y was defined originally as the generation after Generation X, and Generation X as the one after the Baby boomers. If the interpretation of a generation is 10 years, and the baby boomers are retiring , then I should be one of generation Y. But in demographic lexicon, Generation Y has continued to move down as people grow older, and has somehow become synonymous with Teen and, in some cases, PreTeen audiences, in the demo info I’ve reviewed. If someone could explain that to me, I’d appreciate it. Otherwise, I’m just taking it as given.

There were several specific presentations around each element. One I found the most directly useful was presented by CSAP (Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention), specifically by the CSAP Communications Team. The presentation was called Communicating and Working with Generation Y: a Cultural Perspective. I’ve pulled freely from notes on that presentation for this.

It was a trip. The key to the analysis was that it broke down the grouping into shared values, and then analyzed those values. From a reverse-engineering standpoint then, you could approach any message from the values perspective, and communicate your particular message using the value as a conduit for connection. The values were:
Activism, Morality/Spirituality, Authenticity and Identity.

Taken each in turn, I found this the most useful part of the presentation, though it went into much more than just this. These values were identified through manifestations, or observable behaviors, and those behaviors represented the clearest paths to communication—the hook that allowed targeted messaging. And they each had a direct corollary to design, and well as editorial applications. Of course, I was mainly concerned with the design issues. How these apply specifically to design directed at a Teen and PreTeen audience is, of course, a matter of interpretation—and the following is mine. But the fact is that a sensitivity to youth values in design can make the difference in whether the product appeals to the intended target, or whether they feel it applies to their parent, or their younger sibling. The “this is for me” factor is key.

For example, the value of authenticity is extremely important to the teen demo. Translated into design, it’s about the images feeling real, the colors feeling relevant and the organization moving around with a kinetic energy that says “Amusement Park” not “Saturday Evening Post.” And this can mean reflecting looks and attitudes that are real, though not always desirable. Piercing isn’t something that is necessarily desirable to encourage, but showing a model with a piercing gives authenticity. Showing Teens having fun can be a great image, as long as it feels like an authentic good time, not a “posed for the camera” good time. Such difficult to define elements of authenticity vary from group to group, based on life experiences, geographic location, and economic status. But the bottom line in terms of imagery is that the truth may be difficult to identify clearly, but a lie stands out.

Another key value is identity. Identity, which I will go into in a future blog, as it affects branding, is essential to get right for a teen demo, as it is inextricably linked to authenticity. You can’t be real in the message if you don’t know the identity of the recipient of the message. But a level above that is that in Pre-Teen audiences especially, identity is still being formed. Therefore this is a key age for assumptions about identity to be compelling in presentation of identity; to present an aspirational identity of who one wants to be, not necessarily who one is. This may seem contradictory to the value of authenticity, but it’s not. We all want to be more than we are, and one of the key elements in the design communication therefore needs to acknowledge not only where the target is, but where, and who, they want to be.

Next: Social Marketing

A State of Stock (3 of 3) - Jumping to Conclusions

2007-06-07T18:22:00.000-07:00

The way that this used to work in my former position was that, at the end of a bulleted list outlining the issues I’d just gone through in the previous two posts, I’d outline a list of conclusions and action elements specific to the company and departmental goals. Here, rather than make specific conclusions, I’m going to outline more general conclusions, and observations that I’d suggest for publishers and agencies, and more specifically individual designers, in regard to the RF stock industry, keeping the options as open as possible and keeping cost effective measures in mind.

The talent that manipulates the image is your best resource in stock imagery. This is a major issue with many publishers, in my experience. Often the product is seen as the key resource, and not the personnel developing the product. But often that designer will make the difference between a mediocre design and something truly excellent. The committee can’t design it. The AD can do little more than inspire and direct. The designer needs to have the freedom of inspiration, and feel he or she has the confidence of the AD and Marketing to run with an idea.Bottom line; they used to say the image is only as good as your photographer. Now, in this digital age, I'd amend that to say the image is only as good as the photograpehr AND the designer who manipulates it for the end product. One can make up for the shortcomings of the other, but you need one to have a high level of skill. And most often it's the designer who you have the most ability to train, to bring the image to the level you need. Treasure that.

Create micro-payment accounts for key personnel, and let them purchase the images from that account. Between Us, this is an alien concept at most publishers, which prefer to let the money flow through one set of hands, and always want the left hand checking what the right hand is doing. But for crying out loud, no real damage can come from allowing staff members to manage a specific account for images using company credits. Make each individual responsible for acquiring, and documenting their imagery (and usage rights for that imagery) then just let them go.

Create a special service account with a RF stock house (with a contact person or account manager), or specifically limit the use of that house. It’s a pretty simple concept-get your best deal, play hardball, or move on to the next guy. This can work with a corporation or a one-person agency. Getty currently has one of the best and most robust search engines and image identification tools out there. But that does not mean they have the market cornered on the best images. Not yet. Get a contract with them to get the best deal and discount, or pull the plug and don’t use that agency for a year. Get them to give you something, or cut them off. Poor customer service should be rewarded with less or preferably no, business. Move on to the next guy, the likely hungrier guy, and cut a better deal.

Ensure you are on their e-mail list, and check the site often. The best deals are often available through the site. This includes free images, and special discounts (though it’s hard to beat free). Checking the sites regularly can amass a very large collection of free, especially useful for budget-conscious smaller agencies. Stockbyte (before they were swallowed) used to offer three large format images per week. iStockPhoto still has a free image (and free video) of the week. Corbis has a disc-of-the-month, offered at significant savings. But both of these can be hard to find unless you are on their direct e-mail list.

There are more recommendations, of course, more specific to specific situations, but these are the start and should give casual readers an idea of how to frame the coming changes in the RF stock image industry, to take advantage of those changes cost-effectively and with intelligence.

Next: A perspective on Designing for Generation Y

A State of Stock (2 of 3)—The Rise of the Micros

2007-06-05T06:04:00.000-07:00

I believe iStockphoto was the first. If not the first, it was the first in my experience of the micro-payment agencies whose business model was (and hopefully is still) creating such a challenge to the strength of the growing monopoly in Royalty-Free Stock photography that is Getty Images.

The business model is simple-individual sellers can create an account, and through that account make images available. Then other individuals can purchase credits, through which they can buy the images. The cost in credits to purchase an image is affected by image size, and intended usage. For each credit used to purchase your image, the seller gets half—gold hard cash, or the digital equivalent thereof—in a micro-payment. Hence, these types of sites are known as micro-payment agencies.

And purchasers get discounts for buying more credits at one time. First, you can get up to 10 credits, depending on the deal and the code you find, just for opening an account. From that point, you get more “free” credits the more credit blocks you buy. The catch, and of course there is one, is that credits expire a year from purchase. So you run the risk of losing your “free” credits if you buy too large a block, that is, too many credits to use up in a year.

And it’s not just images. iStockphoto offers original vector illustrations, video, and Flash files, all available for purchase, all Royalty free. It’s a truly unique marketplace, and, thus far, a growing competitor to the strength of RF conglomerates like Getty. The image quality is lower, of course, and in general the images suffer from an apples to apples comparison to top RF professional photography. But there are gems there, rough diamonds that, with a little digital polish in the right hands, can become the stuff of Wonder.

The big issue at Company B was unlimited usage of images. Publishers that rely on keeping products in print seldom keep track of actual print runs, as a whole. They keep an inventory in stock for customers to order, and base profit on copies sold, not copies printed. This gives them flexibility to go to press as needed—print on demand of a sort—and that business model isn’t flexible enough to determine exact print runs, which is how the basic micro-payment agency, or rights-managed agencies for that matter, gauge their prices. As a solution for this, the micro-payment agencies allow you to purchase additional rights—say for unlimited press runs—for additional credits. Again, there is the quality trade off. You need the talent on the back-end to make it a worthwhile exchange.

But the disturbing part is that Getty Images purchased iStockphoto, this year. Thus far, the purchase has not adversely affected the business model, at least from this users perspective. But it’s still disturbing to see an idea, which was changing the very paradigm of RF stock imagery swallowed up by the biggest fish in that industry. In the interim, there have been other purveyors of this business model to come up since I first noticed iStockphoto. StockXpert.com, for example (which is now owned by Jupiter Images, which narrowly avoided getting swallowed up by Getty), and there are more coming up every day. Shutterstock.com. Fotalia.com. Dreamstime.com. Imagecatalog.com You can find a dozen more, of varying sizes and quality, in a simple search.

But, as has ever been the business model for the internet, the first and best run usually ends up being the dominant force. And, again, the dominant force has been swallowed in turn by the more dominant force.

That said, with so many alternatives out there, it seems likely that, as Napster changed the way a reluctant music industry looked at music downloads, these RF image community websites, creating a conduit from photographer directly to designers, are changing the shape of RF stock today. How to best take advantage of this paradigm shift is what I’ll consider next.

Next: Some conclusions.

A State of Stock (1 of 3)

2007-06-02T17:37:00.000-07:00

I’d been doing research recently on the state of the Royalty-Free Stock image industry, as it’s a field that directly effects the bottom line of most publishers, be they print or online. My next three entries in this new blog will outline that research and some conclusions. This blog is written from the perspective of a back-end user, as opposed to the wide variety of photographers blogs out there which discuss the perspective of the front-end photographer/seller. Their viewpoint, for the most part, seems a lot more bleak, and I invite you to explore some of their perspectives.

History according to Marcus

Five years ago, the major players in the realm of royalty free stock were numerous; Corbis, Digital Vision, Digital Stock, Rubberball, Thinkstock, Stockbyte, Punchstock (to name but a few), and the grand-daddy of them all, some might say the evil step-grand-daddy, Getty Images. But in the ensuing years, there’s been major consolidation in these names, bringing most of the stock houses under a single roof.

In some ways this has been good. Consolidation of the multiple houses has helped clarify licensing expectations, no longer having one house say one thing in its Royalty Free license, while another offers something completely different. Such inconsistencies make it difficult for companies that take licensing, copyright and intellectual property issues seriously, to keep it all straight. One company means one take on the agreement, one consistency.

But it also means monopoly. Previously there was considerably wider variation in pricing within the stock industry. Royalty-free stock CDs contained about 200 images, at a price-tag of about $300, just two short years ago—at an average cost of approximately $1.50/image. Today, sample CDs in Getty Images Royalty Free library contain about 50 images for about $500-$600—a new average of $10/image. That’s a huge jump. And that jump is driven mainly by Getty Images, which establishes the standard prices the rest of the industry follows, and uses that industry leadership to buy up other smaller houses to further enforce its price structures.

The pond gets smaller, the fish get bigger.

In 2002, Getty bought the number three stock photo agency, Digital Vision for $165 million. In 2005, Getty purchased Photonica and Iconica, for about $50 million, In 2006 it purchased WireImage and iStockPhoto for another $50 million. And in February, Getty was in talks to acquire Jupiter Images, which had previously acquired Thinkstock, Stock Image/Pixland, Goodshot and Bananastock, and had launched it’s own micro-payment agencies, called Stocxpert.com and stock.xchng. A bit before, most disturbingly, Getty had purchased iStockphoto. iStockphoto was the precursor of a new micro-payment stock photo trend in the industry, rather like the Napster of digital photography. through this major outlet, individual, non-affiliated amateur and pro photographers alike can make their digital images available for purchase. And other individuals, agencies, companies, designers and corporations alike can purchase the royalty-free images. I’ll go into this development in a bit more detail in the next part. It's changing everything, and in a real sense, is the answer to a lot of the issues I'll outline here, while raising a host of other issues as well.

While all this gobbling was taken in stride by the industry as a whole, there were personal repercussions. I had been a major purchaser from both companies, coordinating a collection comprised of dozens of Digital Vision CDs, second only to the Getty CDs. As such, I had relationships with account managers (AMs) at each of the companies. Getty’s Account Managers were less responsive, and in some cases almost belligerent in my requests to clarify elements of their licenses. In contrast, Digital Vision and Stockbyte’s AMs seemed to bend over backward to give good deals, and great service. Smaller fish were much more eager to please, and I came to be on a first-name basis with those AMs. Getty, on the other hand, shifted me off to no less than 4 AMs in six months, moving their offices from one coast to the next, and my calls were not readily returned. But they had the CDs that the designers I managed were requesting, and so I had to continue to deal with them. And in the years that followed, both Digital Vision and Stockbyte, and the relationships I had built with their AMs, were swallowed.

Now, just a month ago at the start of May, Getty has purchased Punchstock. Punchstock was one of the largest remaining stock houses, offering all the other houses, plus some unique offerings of their own. As with all the others, the acquisition was met with an immediate stream of CD titles being retired, and the remaining titles being raised in price. Somebody’s got to pay for all those acquisitions. And it’s not going to be the Getty stockholders.

Next: The rise of the micros.