According to Wikipedia:
Design by committee is a term referring to a style of design and its resultant output when a group of entities comes together to produce something, particularly in the presence of poor and incompetent leadership. The defining characteristics of “design by committee” are needless complexity, internal inconsistency, logical flaws, banality, and the lack of a unifying vision.
I couldn’t put it better myself really. While I wear many professional hats these days–creative director, project manager, HR, office therapist, etc.–when I started this whole wild journey I was primarily driven by a love for art and graphic design. This evolved into a desire to bring this high-tech art to the web in order to facilitate and enhance the user experience. I care about aesthetics. I care about color, composition and how these subtleties resonate with the intended audience. What may be a home run for one client’s website audience could easily be all wrong for anothers, as evidenced by the broad range of designs in our portfolio, from a Russian beauty product site to a Twilight enthusiast social network.
I’ve run into a few frustrating “design by committee” situations with clients. One organization actually showed our initial layout mock-up to a room full of complete strangers who were renting their conference room and sent us their feedback. Hmmm. Frequently some of our start-up clients pass our designs around their circle of friends and family, and while certainly everyone is entitled to an opinion, not everyone is tapped into the big picture of what we’re doing, which is integral to giving quality feedback.
By far the worst instance of “design by committee” that I’ve endured was branding and designing for a website which was represented by a group of five investors who also happened to be best friends. For most this was their first major investment and first internet start up experience. Initial design preferences set our team in the direction of a text-only logo with the possibility of a symbol if it was exceptional. We went from bright and bold colors, to subtle and corporate, to a combination of both. We went from text-only to considering several possible symbols, some edgy and some more generic. Unable to decide, at one point they strongly suggested that we recreate a copyrighted image, incorporate it with their logo text, and just “hope for the best.” In other words, re-brand later down the line if they faced liability. This type of proposal is not only insulting but illegal, so of course we refused and offered to embark on yet another set of new concepts from which they were committed to make a decision. After countless weeks of helping their team decide on an appropriate name for the site and no less than 30 logo iterations later between two designers, we were left with what I felt to be an “okay” but far from exceptional logo.
At this point we were months into a development-heavy project with only a name and a logo, and a long way to go. Literally weeks after getting approval on designs, we were immediately under pressure from their novice team to produce the functioning website which had been on hold waiting for final designs. Recognizing their team’s inability to make cohesive and timely decisions on design elements, we strongly encouraged that they allow us creative control on the layout of the site in order to make faster progress. Unfortunately this backfired when our minimalist white and gray design was labeled “too colorful” and they wanted the site to look overall “just like Facebook.” Hmmm. Needless to say this set us down a path of being perpetually behind schedule from an increasingly anxious group. While there were many factors at play here, we could have started the relationship out on a more efficient and consequently productive note had the client understood that “design by committee” isn’t actually a good thing and had our team flagged this group dynamic as potentially disastrous early on.
So what can you do to avoid the inevitable “design by committee” pitfalls as a designer? While that particular experience was the worst to date as far as needing to please multiple clients with one concept, I know it won’t likely be the last. In retrospect I would put extra emphasis on the following items to rein in the process.
- Clear design preferences. Before we even open a new Photoshop or Illustrator file, we ask the client a series of design questions including but not limited to: examples of what they like and what they hate, color preferences, text-only or iconic logo, and a range of conceptual but oddly inspiring questions like, “If your logo was a person, who would it be?” I’ve gotten everything from Nelson Mandela to MacGyver. But the more information you get the better. This forces your client to really think about what their logo identity means, not just set you on aimless journey based on their affinity for the color blue. Chances are if that’s all they can come up with, they probably will end up changing their mind from blue, because they haven’t really put that much thought into this process and how they want to be represented. Even if your design questions are repetitive, consistency in answers should solidify your initial direction and set you on the right track.
- Single point of contact. Even if you are being hired by a large corporation with multiple layers of bureaucracy to maneuver for final design approval, or in this case a start-up with several initial investors, it’s completely reasonable to ask for a primary point of contact for the project. Not long into the design work for this project, we began getting feedback from multiple partners, some of which contradicted the original design questionnaire. At that point, I blew the whistle and asked for a single point of contact who could collect and relay the most critical feedback points to our team. This essentially reduces the three-ring circus to a one-ring circus, and if something doesn’t make sense or is a blatantly terrible idea, at least it has to filter through your single point of contact before getting to you, the designer. I’m glad I did this early on in the process, though it probably should have been done right from the outset.
- One-on-one meeting. In this case, I assigned the design work to an in-house designer. I should have seen the 5-in-1 client red flag right away and tackled this one myself. If I had, I would have insisted on a one-on-one meeting with our designated “point of contact” to reiterate and review the design questionnaire. In most cases, the questionnaire if completed thoroughly, is enough for the designer to conjure a first round of concepts, but following up with the client to review your plan of action never hurts. It’s also another exchange that you can reference if the design begins to derail too far from the original plan. Your client will remember the questionnaire and also the conversation and hopefully, if they’re reasonable, realize that they’re making more work for you and redirect accordingly.
- Evolution of a concept. I think it’s important to show your client a good range of possibilities on the first round. If you have solid questionnaire feedback, you should be able to do this with 5-10 varied samples. I often pair first draft logos with a series of color swatches, using a sampling of my favorites in the actual concepts. When sending these first rounds out, I always qualify them with “let me know if we’re moving in the right direction” in the accompanying letter. This means a) this is a work in progress and b) don’t panic, none of these need to be final. I’ve had some one-hit-wonders with exceptionally easy-going clients, but to create what will be the final logo on the first round is rare. The point is to encourage your client to choose the elements that they like best from the samples given. Utilize those elements in the next iteration to show them a little more variety, and so on. Don’t let them tell you, I don’t like anything from any of these, show me some more. Before you know it, you’ll have your client attempting to whittle down 30+ options, pulling together elements from themes that don’t match and your concept and direction is suddenly all over the map. Attempt to keep the process as linear as possible.
- Psychology. Yes, you are designing for the intended audience, but ultimately you are designing for the client’s personal aesthetic preferences. They will be the ones (after they ask their neighbor’s kids what they think of course) who give the final stamp of approval on your design. What kind of person is he or she? Eccentric, corporate, novice, artistic, simple. What does he or she do for work? Is this their first business venture or website? Knowing your client and tapping into what would appeal to them personally can make this an easier process. Quick Tip: I always put my personal top-pick concept at the top and order them accordingly. While they should all be good, it’s likely that a personal favorite will emerge from the lot. Hopefully, if you’ve successfully tapped into your client’s personality type, they’ll agree and take a liking to this front and center concept. Sounds crazy, but I swear by it!
- Don’t get fancy. You’re a designer, an artiste! But if your client wants a text logo, give them a text logo, not an array of original illustrations. Maybe throw in one or two options for symbols if you really feel like the logo could benefit from it, but once they eliminate them as possibilities, stick closely to what your client is telling you. Ditch the graphics, I don’t like the green, I definitely like this font. Ask for and listen to these specifics, because if you ignore them, you’ll be backtracking into concepts that have already been ruled out, thus complicating and prolonging the process. That said…
- Your professional opinion. If you feel that the logo is going into a really awful direction, you should feel entitled to open a dialogue about these concerns. When your client asks for rainbow gradients on the text, you could do this without complaint and send off the next round of iterations. Or you could risk giving them your professional opinion. Of course you want to be careful about insulting your client’s artistic taste, but relay your opinion citing past experience, recent design trends and of course examples. It might be the CEO-pull, but I’ve found that nine times out of ten, my client respects my opinion when I offer it sparingly, or when it really counts. They may not subscribe to my top-pick, but they may decide against the rainbow gradient, keeping us on a better design track, and keeping the web a more visually acceptable place to browse. Conversely, they may disregard your opinion all together. This is unfortunate, but at the end of the day, you’re a commerciaux artiste. In French, that means you’re not being commissioned to do a landscape, and it’s your job to design for your client’s tastes and wishes. If you’ve given your two cents without great reception, you simply need to swallow your ego and design something that you may not personally love.
Giving your professional opinion doesn’t just have to count when you’re poo-pooing a design however. When allowed to create a really great design, I make a point to tell my client how happy I am with it and how much our team agrees. It may seem redundant since I should probably love everything I create, but the fact is that some designs come together better than others and relaying that satisfaction to your client never hurts. Hopefully this is the way most of your design experiences end. If you luck out with a client who understands the process and respects your professional input, this will likely be the case and you can add another great design to your portfolio. If not, unfortunately we can’t force everyone or their entourage to have good taste or value the talent and expertise that we bring to the drawing board. It’s the life of a designer, or as the French would say, C’est la vie!
