Monday, February 7, 2011

When Constructive Criticism Becomes Toxic

As we enter 2011, I am hopeful for a healthy, happy and prosperous year ahead. At my most idealistic, I’m also hopeful that we can find a little more balance and civility as an industry.

The world was shocked by the January 8, 2011 shooting of U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Arizona. And while the exact motive may never be known, the event has sparked a global debate about words triggering violence. As government officials scramble to take down inflammatory imagery on their web sites and tone down their rhetoric, maybe we, as an industry, can learn something from this tragic event.

I’m guilty of it. Let’s face it, sensationalism gets attention. Making people fearful and spewing negative comments incites action and fuels debate. But have we gone too far as an industry? I look at industry blogs and I see a lot of uninformed criticism out there—a lot more criticism than compliment. Everyone, and I mean everyone is a critic, although a disturbing number of critics online don’t seem to have the courage to share their real identities.  Change a brand too much and the public hates you for throwing away the heritage, too little and the design world deems you boring and safe. And in theory, this thinking is correct, but the window of “acceptable change” seems to be getting smaller and smaller by the day.

I’d like to encourage us all to take a moment before throwing out that juicy comment or critique this year and consider the realities of what your colleagues might be working with. We all have clients with specific needs and concerns. There are realities to each client and brand that we work with as designers. You may not like the end result as a designer, and you have a right to that opinion, but it doesn’t mean the work is wrong or off target.

While there has been a pretty strong industry consensus about brand missteps like Tropicana (I know, will we ever stop talking about it), but more recently The Gap, and even Starbucks has had its fair share of critics. Where I find criticism getting out of hand however is with the many brand evolutions out there. From the ferocity of many ‘constructive’ comments I see, you’d think every job was a blank canvas. In actuality, the gatekeepers we must satisfy is an ever growing list, starting with design managers and ending with the CMO or CEO in many cases, with brand managers and marketing teams to satisfy along the way.

I would argue that the quality and talent of a design firm is revealed, not by their “Method-esque” designs, but by the small humble redesigns. The ones that we all scratch our heads at, thinking, “how are we going to fix THAT? They won’t let us DO anything.” It’s easy to make something gorgeous when you have free rein and a single level of approval. But how do you create inspired design when you only have license to take a baby step? This is where our industry’s true talent shines.

As a seasoned designer who tempers idealism with reality, I’ve realized that these challenging projects are often the ones I am most proud of. These redesigns allow us to really examine each detail of a package and lovingly reconstruct the brand, hand picking typography, illustration, color palette. They are changes that the average person may barely notice as separate elements, but when assembled magically evolve a brand, creating happy consumers and successful business.

Case in point, one of the holy grails of brands, Budweiser. If you look back to the beer’s origins from 1870, there is still a heavy influence on who the brand is today. What’s really interesting about Budweiser for a designer is the essence of this brand. It’s as relevant today as it was 140 years ago. And while Budweiser has constantly evolved, rarely has it taken a misstep, and it has always retained a very strong connection to the brand’s DNA.

In the end, there is nothing funky or cool about most of these projects. Instead, they often bring to mind words like respectful…proud…control. When you think about it, a brand is very much like a person. People don’t change overnight, and neither should a brand. They grow, evolve, and sometimes reinvent. They wear different clothes at different times in their lives – feel more confident at times, more reserved at others but at all times must remain believable. And while critics might scream and yell that this work isn’t creative enough, the reality is brand evolutions are the backbone of our industry.

Now, for those of you who know me, you might be thinking I’ve gone all warm and fuzzy. Not true, I still tell it like it is, but I do stop to consider that I may not be privy to all the information, restrictions, and considerations that my fellow designers are working with. There are loads of amazing, talented designers out there, and plenty of work to go around. Let’s tone down the ego in 2011, temper opinions with some civility, and give credit where credit is due. There’s a reason after all that The Golden Rule has been around for more than 2,000 years.

The Author is a shrink label and shrink wrap sleeves designer located in Washingon State.

Green. And Yellow, Pink, Blue, Purple, Red…

I was deeply surprised at the end of last year when I heard the news that one of the blandest packages I have ever designed, had been chosen to go on exhibition at a Design Biennial here in Brazil. After all, if the creator didn’t consider it very beautiful, you can imagine what others would think. Had the exhibition’s curators created the “worst designs of 2010” category and I was about to get ready for public humiliation?

Unfortunately no. Yes, unfortunately . Because reality was even more somber: the selection had been based on merit, because the design had “green” elements. And the theme of the event—which in theory promised to be very comprehensive —was, of course, sustainability. There were several other designs alongside mine, equally uninteresting, parading claims of being “organic”, with handwritten typography and recycled paper. They were all posing as natural products, adorned by packaging that pretended to be nothing.

Even though I have been bothered for quite some time now about how discussions on packaging design have become increasingly shallow—to the point where they cannot even be considered discussions, but rather boring monologues—the shock was unparalleled. After all, the need to be aware of the environmental consequences and impact of what we produce is one thing. Reducing an arena that should discuss design in its broadest sense into a politically correct pamphlet is another entirely . As if sustainability were the only issue for design today.

And, I must confess, these kinds of categorizations frighten me. One dimensional, monothematic. Supposedly guided by a noble, “historical destiny” that is impossible to deny. They should frighten you as well. A brief, retrospective look at similar moments in history is sufficient to see the damage a group of people can cause when they believe they have been anointed.

If, as the saying goes, consumption is the great enemy; when packaging that wastes material is all ordered by the same client (Hell’s marketing department), what is left to us, as designers, but to make amends for our guilt by restricting our profession to the search for solutions that minimize the environmental impact of the evil we cause? “It’s not my fault.” “I’m doing my part.” “Look, look: I’m a packaging designer, but I also ride a bicycle!” And that’s it.

That’s it?

Well now, isn’t there another recurring cliché in present day monologues that says we should replace “consumers” with “humanity”? Let’s do that then. We don’t even have to stop pretending we don’t know that a great part of the movement towards sustainability is fed by greater profit margins and not through social engagement. Nor do we have to go into details about the “purity” that existed in past ideologies, also considered “noble” in their time. Let’s just discuss “humanity” in all its complexity.

For example: is it possible to consider the cultural aspect of design as irrelevant? To not speak  of esthetics as if they were synonymous with futility? To not be  ashamed of discussing beauty, a superficial matter in the face of such important issues, such as global warming? Apparently not. And that’s what replacing “consumer” with “humanity” means? Oh, okay. Then let’s begin by renouncing all those who wasted their lives on superficial matters? Yes, those futile ones. Turner, with his sterile landscapes of boats at sea, while others lived in hunger. Flaubert, concerned about provincial bourgeois boredom and adultery in Pont L’Evéque while the planet perished. Michelangelo, selling his talent to the powerful papacy rather than painting the social themes that surrounded him. The list is long, very long. And it includes designers as well. All empty beings. Not like us. We have a historic mission; we have a collective consciousness. We only speak of serious things. We all talk about the same things as we ride our bicycles to buy fruit without preservatives at the corner grocer.

The human being needs more than organs functioning perfectly in order to live. Otherwise, we would need only doctors and dentists and we would go through existence happy as could be. The same occurs at a collective level. If the environmental issue is an undeniable component of our times, it is not the only one. Monothematic speeches tend to engender people blinded by what they consider their “historical destiny”. From there to burning enemies at the stake is but a short step. Whether the enemy is packaging that wastes material or a book. Or a person. The object changes according to the times, but the attitude is the same. Identical. To the heretics, the fire. The idea of being collectively united by a mission that justified the elimination of its “enemies” was responsible for many of the bleakest periods in the history of mankind. Don’t be fooled into thinking that because of each period’s cultural differences, past examples are odd. (Unless, of course, you believe they had their reasons.)

Is green a colour? Yes. But there are others. Many others. So, let’s get back to talking about all of them.

The Author is a in mold label designer and a printed shrink sleeves designer located in Washingon State.

Beyond Heat Shrink Sleeve Packaging...

Once relegated to mostly labels the packaging industry is now purchasing new equipment to keep contemporary with consumer needs. New technology has enabled companies to provide packaging on demand and where products can be produced in small quantities as needed. As the technology becomes more mainstream companies will switch to digital alternatives offering cost savings, inventory and time.

This technology is particularly relevant to the online marketplace where orders can be placed, delivered quickly and in small quantities enabling them to become global competitors.

Customization and personalization options will enable companies to offer unique and personal items in small quantities.

Packaging On Demand

Digital printing will change the way in which firms look at packaging. Businesses are looking at short inventory times and just-in-time delivery, as well as rapid processing of orders.

3d Mockups for packaging development and prototypes can be created for any product.

You can make adjustments and changed before the final product is completed.

Whatever the needs of the market digital packaging is growing. It offers unlimited flexibility to order smaller quantities whether testing the market, launching an new product or juts keeping inventory under control. Digital printing is the wave of the future.

Packaging Phrases To Watch For In 2010

  • Digital Packaging
  • On Demand Packaging
  • Prototypes
  • Mockups
  • Customization
  • Personalization

The Author is a shrink sleeve labels designer and a heat shrink packaging specialist located in Washingon State.