NOVEMBER 29, 2006
Design
By Helen Walters
Rewarding Design's Bottom Line
Britain's Design Effectiveness Awards, announced Nov. 27, look for intelligence and success in meeting business goals, rather than beauty
Award ceremonies are always somewhat problematic, especially when the discipline being judged is as subjective as design. The big personalities that can make the industry so colorful to observe don't necessarily like it when things don't go their way. And designers are close to rabid about the purity and integrity of their craft.
The Design Effectiveness Awards, run by Britain's Design Business Assn. (DBA) and announced Nov. 27 at a swanky black tie dinner at London's Hurlingham Club, attempt to sidestep the ego-technics by concentrating instead on practical business measures. These awards don't claim to be about "good" or "bad" design.
Instead, submissions are considered in conjunction with cold, hard facts: measurements such as gross margin, increase in market share, share price, and market penetration. And, in contrast to many other design awards, the judging panel itself comprises only those from the client side; commissioners from organizations including Fujitsu, the Orient Express, and Britain's National Health Service.
Making Design the Issue "The issue to be decided is whether or not an entry makes a convincing case for design having made the outstanding contribution to the commercial success of a project," contends Deborah Dawton, chief executive officer of DBA.
"Success is defined by looking at the original goals, deciding whether they were significant in a business context, and whether or not they were achieved or exceeded. It is also crucial that the entrants show evidence that other influencing factors, such as a reduction in price or a major advertising campaign, did not cause the results claimed by the design."
The figures supporting the various winners are certainly pretty persuasive. A new Adidas Sports Performance store in Berlin exceeded sales targets by 40%. Luxury chocolate brand Green & Black increased its market share to 7.4% (from 1% in 2002) after Pearlfisher's repositioning of the brand. Therefore Product Design developed the portable TomTom Go satellite navigation system with a new-product introduction that resulted in TomTom's sales rising by some 275%.
Making it New The overall Grand Prix was awarded to beer manufacturer Foster's for its "waterfall" packaging for cases of cans or bottles sold in supermarkets. Impressed by an increase in market share to 29% from 23.7%, the judges considered that the project demonstrated all the qualities necessary to take the sought-after prize for "best in show."
"With what appeared to be no other variable than the design of the pack, sales shot up far faster than the growth of the market," says Raymond Turner, judging panel chairman and a design-leadership consultant. "It showed an intelligent use of design to help to reposition a product with which people had become familiar. It's an excellent example of design working with demonstrable success."
Unfortunately, it's also a rather ugly piece of design. And here's where the intra-industry muttering and grumbling begins, and the claims of not caring whether or not something is "good" or "bad" design run into trouble. After all, what message does giving Foster's the "best in show" accolade send to the business community at large? Should a design organization really be ignoring the basic principles of "good design" in order to prove to the business community that it should be taken seriously?
Effectiveness Over Beauty "These awards are not about design standards," insists Deborah Dawton. "The goal here is to decide whether a project is significant in a business context. I don't think [design consultancy] BR&Me can be condemned for responding to a client brief to a level that exceeded all expectations. Yes, I would love to see a Grand Prix winner that looks fantastic and drives sales, but here is something that was absolutely appropriate for the market. We were awarding their ability to understand their audience and come up with something they would react to."
Turner is also adamant that the judging panel made the correct decision. "The first thing I told the judges was that we were there to judge design effectiveness, not design beauty. There are other competitions out there which judge design excellence in a visual sense," he details. "I asked them to look for a clear demonstration that design has had a positive impact on the business."
The DBA must tread a fine line. Thwarting design puritans who overlook the practicalities of the market is one thing, but ignoring issues of aesthetic altogether seems both dangerous and problematic. The future goal must surely be to marry the two, in a union that benefits both industries equally and promotes the importance of design to business. For the design industry at large, that will be the winning combination.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
