Design For Impact

I found Jeff Mulhausen’s (Upstream) lecture to be a refreshing change from the normal marketing undergraduate curriculum. Marketing classes usually teach how to sell existing products vs. how to design new products. Certainly understanding human centered/industrial design is a key for marketers in today’s product landscape. However, incredibly innovative products from companies such as Apple and Ikea are the exception rather the norm. iPad commercials are fairly simple in their creative content – product demonstration and a catchy (but otherwise obscure) song. Apple’s products are so user friendly that the products sell themselves. Apple’s advertising agency surely cannot have nearly as difficult of a job as the agency of Pantene.

There is no doubt that we live in a cluttered society – too many cars on the road, too many children in a classroom, and too many commercials on TV. There is also considerable product clutter, particularly in consumer packed goods, as evidenced in any Target shampoo or detergent aisle. Upon further thought into the design philosophy, it seems like something that could eventually put many marketers out of business. Starting from business school, students are taught to become savvy marketers by “cutting through the clutter.” Less clutter is good for consumers, but bad for manufacturers. Considerable resources and talent is spent in differentiating one brand from the next. After all, is there really a significant difference between Pantene, Herbal Essences, Clairol, and Fructis? Marketers for these consumer packed goods brands are tasked largely with building a brand, rather than product improvement. Focusing on the design seems to put more emphasis on the product rather than the brand. The benefits and features of these rare breed of products are apparent, so there is no need for a commercial to cleverly point them out. Though design philosophy is not as applicable to CPGs as to other goods, the shift from brands to product features does bring up an interesting point to consider.

Incorporating a design philosophy into product development certainly is consistent with the paradox of choice theory. If one product works so well in such a simple fashion, where is there room for the competition? Retailers are already downsizing the amount of brands that they carry in a particular product category. Consumers like choice, but not too many choices. How would consumers feel if there were only one or two superiorly designed products in a category? One of Dieter Ram’s principles is that, “Good design is as little design as possible.” After many years of refuting this theory, with considerable new products that had many features differing in brand name only, it seems that we may be doing a 180.

Clearly, human centered design makes life easier. This philosophy focuses on products that actually make life better and fill a lingering need. Design philosophy creates new product categories vs. new products in existing categories. Tapping into a new product category also greatly reduces the barriers to entry that we see so often in established industries. Our consumer-driven economy focuses on products that are cool and innovative, yet often trivial. The ultimate satisfaction of a job well done would be to create a product that is cool, initiative, and meets a key human need, rather than a mere want. Personally, I tend to associate innovation with trivial consumer products that I don’t really need but are awfully cool to have. It’s hard to think about necessity products being particularly fun to design, sell, etc. Previously, I never thought about marketers and product designers using their tools and knowledge to better society, but it’s nice to know that all practice of the profession is not in vain. Creating a product with a design philosophy in mind requires marketers and manufacturers to think outside the lines. Because, really, how many more shampoos can fit on the shelf at Target?

Conclusion (or lack thereof): I can’t decide whether design philosophy is a huge opportunity or a huge threat for the traditional practice of marketing. Blogs are for pondering, right?