The power of yes, or why the free pitch is bad for everybody...

The following was originally written for the DBA to support a campaign they ran against free-pitching, it's a long held view of mine that the 'free-pitch' is as bad for client organisations as it is for designers...in the article I point out why this is.

Selecting and appointing a new design partner is one of the most important elements of what we do.

To be effective, relationships with agencies should be built for the long term. We need to be sure that the partnership will work and not just for us as the client but also for the agency.

We focus on five key areas to help us make this judgment - The Five C's:

- Credentials

- Capability

- Creative

- Chemistry

- Cost 

We look to gather hard evidence across these five areas. The way we gather this hard evidence is through a Credentials Pitch. Essentially this boils down to a series of meetings with a small number of (usually no more than five) suppliers. None of these meetings require any of the agencies to produce any original creative.

This differs to the traditional methodology for selecting a new design partner, which unfortunately more commonly sees clients ask suppliers to produce creative work as evidence of their ability to undertake the work; the Creative Pitch as it has become known. We believe this method leads to poor decisions and may undermine the commercial strength of our organisation. Fundamentally, we believe the creative pitch is commercially toxic and is a tradition the marketing profession can do without. Commercially toxic may sound a little over the top but here are some of the potential hidden consequences of the creative pitch that can have a negative impact on a business, post decision:

- The creative will be naïve and hastily pulled together. It will be based on a very narrow understanding of you, your market and the true nature of what is required. Creative like this is dangerous to share within a business as it can lead to commercial decisions being made on the basis of taste rather than commercial sense. This ultimately may lead to your own commercial failure

- It isn't free creative, the cost of producing this work will be recovered through the subsequent work you do, the agency will likely resent giving their work away for free and this dysfunction will undermine and ultimately destroy your commercial partnership. A failure in such a vital strategic relationship may lead to your own commercial failure

- The quality of any creative produced will only reflect the amount of time the agency has spent on the pitch. In any successful agency this will not be a great amount of time, unless the agency is struggling to win work. This will lead to poor decision making as it is likely that you appoint a poor agency with lots of time to spend on your pitch over the strongest agency who was busy with fee paying work in the lead up to the pitch. Ultimately this will affect your competitiveness and may lead to your own commercial failure

To demonstrate why the credentials pitch works better for us in comparison to the creative pitch I've drawn a comparison between the two methodologies:

Credentials Pitch Creative Pitch Credentials Has this company got a track record of: 1. Working successfully within my sector? and/or 2. Have they worked on similar projects (in any sector) successfully? Short outline of work done for other clients – usually focused on blue chip clients and household names Critique: This approach gives you good practical evidence of relevant capabilities and expertise This will not give you any kind of deep insight into the role the agency played or the difference they made Capability What are the agency’s processes? How have they codified what they do and how they do it? What is their creative process; their planning process; and strategic, insight and research process? How do they intend to apply these processes to the work I need them to do? How will they manage shocks to these? n/a Critique: This gives you a depth insight into how your project will be handled and how they are able to repeat with you the successes they have outlined above You have no way of judging whether any work they have done is a result of luck or judgment Creative Does the company have a ‘house-style’? Is this suitable for my brand? If there is no clear house style have they demonstrated a suitable breadth of creative to indicate they would be able to transfer their creative skills to my brand? Do I think the creative the agency has done on my brief will work? Do I like what I see? Am I excited and engaged by the creative? Do my colleagues agree? Critique: This gives you a good measure of whether the agency is suitable for your kind of work Whilst you have something tangible you can use to show colleagues and judge the different work it will be creative based on a shallow understanding of you and your market. From a client perspective this element of the creative pitch is commercially toxic (see why below) Chemistry Do the people I have met get on and can I get on with these people. 1. Is there a natural affinity between the team who are presenting? and 2. Between my team and them? Do the people I have met get on and can I get on with these people. 1. Is there a natural affinity between the team who are presenting? and 2. Between my team and them? Critique: One of the key aspects of the client/designer relationship is partnership, ascertaining that you will get on with the creative team is vital (and often overlooked) One of the key aspects of the client/designer relationship is partnership, ascertaining that you will get on with the creative team is vital (and often overlooked) Cost Are the outline costs (daily rates) and indicative timelines going to work for my budget? Does the detailed estimate fit with out budget? Critique: Combined with the information you gleaned as part of ‘Capability’ and perhaps also an outline project plan, this gives you the info you need to judge as to whether this agency is a good fit for you in regard to your budget A detailed estimate pulled together as part of a pitch is dangerous. The estimate will be likely to be full of inaccuracies as it is based on only a shallow understanding of you and the work required. It is also likely to attract various inducements and ‘loss-leaders’ aimed at attracting the decision to made in favour of the agency

Sugar Coated Design: A Creative Morning in London

Last week I was at one of the London Creative Mornings events, speaking with long-time design collaborator, Michael Johnson, about the relationship between clients and their designers.

Michael spoke about the various ways designers present, what they present and in which order, what works and what doesn't, he has subsequently written this up here.

Below kind of captures what I was trying to say...

Over the last couple of years I have becoming increasingly concerned about a trend I have noticed regarding design, specifically graphic design and brandings standing in popular culture and business. Sure there are a few shining lights, but for every Johnny Ive there are hundreds of struggling design agencies and for every Thomas Heatherwick there are thousands of demotivated and disengaged graphic designers leaving the industry.

There are a lot of factors that might be contributing to this, but perhaps the most pernicious is Alan Sugar.

Sort of.

Well it’s not all his fault, but perhaps how design is portrayed within his show, the now annual quasi-business-focussed charade that is The Apprentice, is a fair reflection of how, at least from the outside our industry is imagined to work.

Sugar coated design

Specifically I am referring to the tasks where they have to invent a new biscuit for the medically insane or an advertising campaign for holidaying in Sellafield or the creation of a new product to satisfy the desires of football thugs. Whatever it is that they have been tasked to do by the diminutive-bearded-barrow-boy-done-good there is an inevitable ‘at the agency’ scene populated by initially keen and subsequently dead eyed creative’s. Who after the novelty of ‘being-on-the-telly’ has worn off realise that it is their job to unquestioningly bring to life the ill-thought-through concepts of the buzzword toting business mannequins on team ‘Stealth’. That with their own fame-hungering permission they have allowed the process of ‘design’ and themselves to be portrayed as simple, non-speaking, drone-like mac-monkeys.

Combine this with the rise of sites such as Crowdspring or 99dollarlogo.com and the increasing number of poorly considered design competitions and a bit like a kidnapped tourist forced into the boot of a car on the wrong side of Los Angeles you have to wonder where we might be headed.

But it’s not just external factors, I also believe that there is a worrying downward trend in the design industries self-belief.

Firstly, there seems to be a deeply held belief that if done well enough design can transcend itself and become art. Is this really what we’re striving for? Is having work on permanent exhibition at the V&A really the ultimate affirmation? I think this sort of mis-held goal is another symptom of how low we value our own work. Sure it’s nice. But it should be nice like having our work posted on a blog is nice. Surely impact and the works success at meeting our clients goals should be the ultimate accolade. But also why is art the ‘high-church’ of design? It is seemingly never considered that an artist might one day elevate themselves up to the status of a designer, yet in many ways the skills of great graphic and branding design are harder won than the more self-indulgent and esoteric demands of art.

Secondly, I think there has been a rise in the number of what I call ‘clients are from mars, designers are from venus’ derisory websites - blogs and books that poke fun of clients as morons that don’t ‘get’ design.

This sort of humour only undermines the perceived value of design in business and the contribution it makes in making marketing more effective. It damages any relationship between client and agency and is almost certainly why many of our industry bodies are struggling to find a voice; identify what they stand for; and who their allies and supporters are. It is also possibly why the frequency of free pitching increases and the design process is getting ever more commoditised.

Client and Designer

And so what might we do about it? How might we reverse this downward trend?

I think we might need to back to some fairly basic principles, albeit fairly basic principles practised by the worlds pre-eminent designers and clients. These suggestions might turn what I have already described as a downward trend that’s moving us ever closer to being the mac monkeys working for Alan Sugar and instead allow us to get out of the boot of our kidnappers sedan and bring some pride and value back into what we do.

Firstly we need to remind ourselves that this isn’t a service industry. It’s a consulting industry. That the relationship between designer and client is not servant and master but a partnership.

Of course the relationship is not perfect. But it’s no more imperfect than the relationship accountants or architects or surveyors or even Information Technologists have with their own clients. But in each of those consulting relationships, and here is what I believe will be the key to turning design around, they have a widely understood and respected process through which the relationship and work is protected. Accountants have their International Accounting Standards; Architects and Surveyors have the RIBA stages; IT have Cisco and Microsoft project management and systems standards.

But design has nothing.

Sure each leading agency has its own brand process that it sells in at the beginning of jobs – the brand onions or pyramids or even brand worlds with their R and TM signs. All of them basically identical, all preaching how much better and different they are. The trouble is these similarities and differences breed confusion and scepticism and our professionalism and standing is undermined.

So we need to talk process. Not now, not here, it’s not my place…but I would like to think that we, as an industry, could discuss it and design a common process.

But it’s more than just process. It’s also about ego.

The industry has to get over itself and let go of its arrogance and its ego.

Let’s start with clients are from Mars, agencies are from Venus. Criticising your consulting relationship is a criticism of you. Laughing along with someone else criticising the relationship is no different. All other consulting partnerships share much the same experiences and frustrations…very few air their dirty washing in public.

Secondly remember that Creative Director is an internal agency job title, once you’re with your client, that’s all out the window. Everyone during creative presentation becomes fairly equal – the process can be managed, but shouldn’t be directed.

Lastly you don’t walk on water, you might be the coolest, most trendily and ironically dressed person at the meeting, but you are not god’s gift. A fairly prominent figure in the design world was recently quoted as saying that ‘design is the tribute art makes to industry’ which seems to be just a little too self-satisfied. Surely the best way to convince ‘industry’ that you are important and should be more highly valued is not to just tell them so, but rather to prove it through action.

I could direct similar criticism at marketers. Especially around understanding that their word is not lore, that opinion is just that an opinion and that designers have a specific set of skills that they would do well to listen to and utilise.

So in conclusion. Let’s remember how important design is. Let’s not sell our souls to the edit of a BBC cutting room floor. Let’s believe what we do is important in its own right and not let design be hijacked by art. Let’s agree a process that will elevate our standing and render more of our efforts chargeable. Let’s consult not do. Let’s respect our partners. Let’s leave our ego’s at the door.

If we do all of this we might be alright.

By Tom Foulkes

This is an abridged version of a talk I made last Friday at one of London’s Creative Mornings. There may be a video of this eventually, once all the litigatory stuff has been edited out...

Follow me on twitter @tomfoulkes or  mosy along to my website and say hello.

The rise of the Holidork and 5 ways to spot one...

Holidork [Hol – ee – dork] - noun. Informal . a person who is unable to stop themselves from working even when on holiday. Comes from the combination of the words ‘holiday’ and ‘work’ with reference to the insult ‘dork’

By nature Hoilidork’s are guarded about their activity, they know that they should be relaxing but can’t help working – this forces the Holidork to be secretive about what they are doing.

To help spot the working holiday maker – better known as the Holidork here are the 5 defining symptoms.

1. Pre-Holiday

Along with the normal checks of tripadvisor, hotel.com and expedia. The Holidork will want to check geeky maps that show if the proposed destination has a decent data signal.

Long-time holidork’s won’t even have to check the map - they know for example that holidays to Tokelau, the South Sandwich Islands and most of Norfolk are simply a no-no (the latter for reasons that go beyond just a poor data connection).

2. On the plane

The holidork will be checking emails right up to the point where the stewards are threatening physical restraint and/or reaching to turn off the phone themselves. After which the holidork will continue to surreptitiously check for new emails even though logic, experience and science tells them that it’s impossible to get a signal at 30,000ft.

3. In the airport

Before the wheels have hit the tarmac the holidork will be checking, scanning, disconnecting and reconnecting their phones in search of the local network. The holidork will be operating safe in the knowledge that the ‘email police’ (stewards) are restrained in their own seats – the ‘crew prepare for landing’ announcement is the Holidorks cue. 

Desperately hoping for the new emails and activity that they need to positively reinforce their sense of self worth. The holidork can be spotted by their initial delight with the immediate advent of a new message only to be crushed by the realisation that it is just the local networks automated ‘Welcome to…’ message. Thereafter the Holidork can be spotted through Passport Control and at the baggage carousel by their smug, relieved expressions relating to a strong data signal and the banal nature of the conversation they are having with those around them about which carrier their phone has connected to.

4. In the toilet

The combination of peace and quiet, a seated position and a believable excuse make the holiday toilet the workplace of choice for any holidork with a significant other. Whilst this symptom is more difficult to spot the holidork’s estranged partner should be able to identify toilet based holidork-ing by: the lack of any odour resulting from a 20 minute visit, an uncommon frequency of toilet trips and continued tenuous excuses relating to ‘last nights dinner’ yet no interest in seeking pharmaceutical or other professional help.

5. At all other times

Sudden crankiness, mumbling under breath, a faraway look in their eyes, all of these are symptomatic of the Holidork. The added stress of dealing with work whilst away means that far from getting away from it all the Holidork has brought it all with them. However without the context of a working day and any visible reason for the pre-occupation the Holidork can seem as if they are not enjoying their holiday – which of course they are not due to the emails they received earlier about the new expenses policy or Nigel’s email about the new project he’s leading – leaving the Holidork mumbling and obsessing about the finer details and nuances contained within them.

Brilliant minds at Harvard, McKinsey and Dilbert are busy searching for a cure…in the meantime if you spot a Holidork, first take away it’s smart phone – then strike it with a bat, put it out of its eternal misery.

WHEN GOOGLE GOT SOCIAL

My view of Google+ for my employer Buro Happold

1st August, 2011

Google has said that ‘well over 10,000,000’ people are currently involved in the ‘limited field trial’ of Google+ surely proof (if any is needed) of its almost inevitable dominance.

Google unveiled Google+ on June 28th 2011 in beta form promising full integration with its Android mobile OS and Chrome Web browser. The company’s PR states that Google+ emphasises the ability to interact differently with separate 'Circles' of friends. It includes a sharing engine called Sparks, a many-user video conferencing platform called Hangouts, a group messaging service called Huddle, and a cloud-based photo and video album service with instant mobile-upload capabilities.

So what differentiates Google+ in the market and why should Buro Happold as an engineering consultancy be interested?

For a while analysts, journalists, pub pundits and end users have wondered when and how Google might break into social media. Indeed it has taken a lot longer than expected. With the change at the top as co-founder Larry Page took over day-to-day operations as CEO from Eric Schmidt there was an admission that they had ‘screwed up’ over social media. Unsurprisingly this coincided with the company’s change in focus.

Google has tried with social media in the past. They’ve tinkered and added bits and pieces. They bought YouTube in 2006, flirted with getting hold of Twitter and before that, in 2007, there was widespread gossip that they would buy Facebook for an estimated $25bn. Incidentally at the time this was seen as a ludicrously overestimated ‘hype value’. That now looks more like a bargain, with Facebook’s user-base having grown to 750 million and the site now valued at a conservative $70bn.
Google have added bits and pieces of social media integration. They integrated tweets into search results and more recently added the +1 function for users to ‘like’ Web content. But for a market leader of Google’s dominance this tinkering looked more like lipstick on a pig than the disruptive market leadership of a global giant.

Without a proper social function Google seemed to be going the way the dinosaurs of search (Alta Vista, Excite, etc.) once Google entered the market back in 1997.

Not anymore. Google+ is a game changer.

Not only does Google+ integrate with Google’s existing, burgeoning media empire – search, AdWords, YouTube and Chrome – it also integrates with the world’s fastest growing mobile channel: Android. Combine this with Gmail, Google Finance and Shopping and everything else that ensures that Google – more than any other website – is the default homepage of the world’s Web users and you have a compelling proposition. Then consider that rather than relying on co-operation between companies (never guaranteed – check out ‘frenemies’ Adobe and Apple) to drive integration, Google has stated that all employee bonuses will be judged on their personal success of integrating their products with social media (for ’social media’ read Google+).

The timing is impeccable. Questions are being asked about the long-term prospects of both Facebook and Twitter. Outside Tim Berners-Lee’s view concerning Facebook’s ‘compartmentalisation of the Web’ there’s an increasing disquiet about the ‘noise’ that users have to put up with at Facebook. The monetisation of the platform has certainly come at the expense of user experience and users seem to be increasingly intolerant of adverts and promotions clogging up their Facebook pages. There are questions over whether Twitter has a clear plan for how to monetise the business and no obvious answers. Meanwhile, Google+ doesn’t need to address these questions, nor does it need to clog user screens with paid for content. Google’s business already benefits from strong, resilient income streams and Google+ compliments these and its presence increases their value to all – the company, end users and advertisers.

However none of this is a game changer that would greatly impact an engineering consultancy outside of the marketing and IT teams.

The reason that Google+ is interesting to the likes of us is simple. Google, for the first time in the social media landscape, allows users of its service to create groups of friends and contacts. Google+ calls this feature Circles and it revolutionises how a social media site might be used.

With Google+ Circles a user is able to separately manage personal and business ‘friends’. So one moment you can share a business update about something you’re working on with your Business Circle and the next you can share the photographs of your mate’s stag do with your Personal Circle. This apparently small advance is a true game changer as are its implications for targeted sharing, exchange and social relationships in discreet, managed groups.

Let’s take education as an example. As a professional group, teachers have a difficult time dealing with the issues raised by social media. At the beginning of the year the National Association of Head Teachers called for new rules to establish how teachers should use social media with particular attention given to Facebook. The main issue the profession faces is striking a balance between having a ‘private’ life on Facebook complete with personal photos, opinion and discourse without being embarrassed by pupils finding out too much.

With Google+ this isn’t a problem – teachers can create student Circles and then actively engage in a social network for their classes. Imagine a university lecturer. He or she would be able to separate their personal life from their academic one. They would be able to concurrently manage multiple Circles and have a ‘Class of 2011 Circle’ a ‘Class of 2012 Circle’, etc. This would mean the class would be part of a discrete social network for sharing information. Email would become redundant. Communications would be easier. Thoughts, opinion, the wealth of data on Google and Wikipedia and YouTube, blogs, personal experience would be socialised and shared. Lecture notes stored in Google+ would be viewable on Android phones and tablets or on ChromeBooks. The traditional teaching paradigm is changed.Following graduation this Circle continues – helping the university keep track of alumni and ensuring that students going out into the world get the support of an established network.

Indeed with Google+ you needn’t even be in class. You could use another of Google+’ features – Huddle and Hangouts. With these teaching could be face to face without being face to face (i.e. via webcam) and rather than relying on a glitchy silo with issues of account sign-up and sign-in (such as Skype) it would be integrated and in front of you, right there in (what will quickly be) the world’s favoured social site. This then leads you to wonder about cross-border and distance learning. Access to guest lecturers and researchers in the field would also be easy and links no doubt quickly made.
So the role of the classroom changes. Pupils at all ages and stages could benefit from the same principles within a controlled environment. As can science or any other form of research. Indeed Circles and this sort of easing of mass global communication impact all industries and all sectors.

These changes impact on the demands of real estate. It’s this that makes Google+ relevant to Buro Happold:  Social interactions, social behaviour and social demand changes what we need or expect out of the places within which we live, work and play in civic and commercial society. A social media revolution which frees us of pre-existing boundaries changes the way we relate to one another and revolutionises our demands from those spaces and places. As engineers it is our role to anticipate change and to adapt our solutions so that they continue to be effective in delivering the visions of our clients which we can all share.

The world changes and with it the role of the engineer – we’re at the forefront of change.

Brand - A Q&A for the Benchmarks Brand Book

April, 2011

What are the key elements that make good branding design?

Deep respect and understanding for the client companies business strategy, it’s history and vision for it’s future. I truly believe the best work is borne from a partnership approach between the client and agency, the best work is done when there is no more than a cigarette paper between the client and agency team…this closeness forces the client to become invested in the outcome and the agency to feel engaged and responsible.

How far can a campaign stray from the original branding concept?

This is almost impossible to answer. Some brands have flexibility built in to their DNA, some demand consistency. Some brands are their campaigns, with very little manifestation outside of them, some don’t run any sort of discernible campaign and manifest themselves in other ways. In theory there is little or no reason why a campaign couldn’t stray an awful long way from the original branding concept, but in my mind there would have to be an element of truth that stems from the branding, some element of the promise - that relates to the customers expectation that enables an enormous departure but within the confines of the original brand truth or vision.

How important is the logo?

Very important. But only if it is part of a brand. Logo is easy, brand is difficult. Logo costs £295 and is available from your nearest crowdsourced logo monkey website. Brand is a lifetime’s work.

Can you cite any good examples?

Every time I see one of their vans the FedEx logo makes me smile - it’s a lovely little treat of clever typography and visual metaphor, consistently applied and I think it is yet to be bettered. The aol work is nice and I love the flexibility they designed in…I also think they have to be applauded for it somehow not coming across like they’ve ‘done a Google’ (although they have). I also think the essential Waitrose extension is a great example of how a brand can extend its range into potentially dangerous territory but through keeping to the core promise can fair extraordinarily well.

What skills and qualities do you look for in design groups you may hire to do your branding design?

This relates to my earlier answer. The key quality for me is to work with people for the long-term – with shared ideals about it being a partnership. I am a fairly trustworthy client with immense respect for the creative process, I therefore look for groups that trust that, have the confidence to work openly, have passion for what they do and above all else have a conviction for doing great work.

WHO'S ON YOUR SIDE?

The power of services such as the RAR and the DBA Directory

26th April, 2010

Just recently I’ve moved employers from Land Securities, a fairly large UK-focussed property company to Buro Happold, a consultant engineer working across the world.

One company a pillar of the FTSE 100, underpinned by a far-sighted and long term investment strategy in commercial property…the other a partner owned, fee earning business…

But despite their differences both had a torrid time over the last 18 months …Land Securities suffered a £4.8bn loss during the period…that’s 4,800 million pounds…Whilst Buro Happold saw their turnover fall and announced cost cutting measures across the business…

But today Land Securities have announced they are dusting off and readying themselves for £700m worth of development and Buro Happold are re-employing…preparing to open new offices in emerging markets and successfully won new contracts worth tens of millions of pounds in the first quarter of 2010 alone.

So it seems cautious optimism is seeping back into many companies. And even cautious growth is back on the agenda.

But the world doesn’t look like it did in 2006 or 2007. Fresh from the bruising suffered during the downturn - businesses have changed.  From my perspective at least, dealing with the boards at both Land Securities and Buro Happold I would have to say that decision making criteria have shifted.

Procurement processes and criteria put in place last year won’t disappear now and look like they are one of the many legacies created by the downturn...More than ever, Senior Management want to know that they’re management teams are making the right decisions. That those decisions will deliver value to the business and pose as little risk to the company as possible. And unfortunately when faced with difficult decisions marketers seem to outsource responsibility to the dreaded free pitch…the long standing dysfunction that our industry has to endure. Leading as it does to so many poor decisions on agency selection. I can never understand why the free creative pitch is used at all.

As far as I can see it has four major problems:

Firstly it can favour the weak. It is very likely that the least busy agency involved in a pitch will spend the most time preparing their response. This means they are likely to over deliver and perhaps unfairly influence the decision through sheer volume of work produced.

Secondly it sets up a dysfunctional dynamic between client and agency from the start that will last as long as it takes to recoup the money spent during the pitch. Having worked at agency myself I know that the time spent on a pitch is often recorded in the same way as it would be on any other live fee-paying work. It will then fall to the plucky account director to find ways to recoup this money during the first couple of jobs with the new client. In which case the client ends up paying for the pitch work anyway but has started the relationship with a dysfunctional, potentially resentful agency.

Thirdly what value has the creative work really got? After all even in the best of circumstances the work will have been prepared in a matter of weeks, without the full engagement of the client and without full access to all of the research and facts that the company is unlikely to have released even in the most confidential of pitches.

And finally it allows subjectivity into what should otherwise be an objective process. Deciding to use agency A over Agency B because the MD prefers purple to blue is never going to ensure best value but it still happens…all too often

And so get off of your soapbox Tom. Especially as most people already know all of this. And especially as I’ve said all of this before. And especially especially  after the industry has chosen not to listen and moved on.

So depressingly I have to concede that it seems that the unpaid pitch isn’t going anywhere soon and it is to the unpaid pitch that the majority of marketers will turn when making future agency selections.

In which case you need someone on your side.

And as far as I can see –  this is where the RAR and the DBA’s Directory service comes in.

In an age where I am able to browse Amazon, ebay, trip advisor, check-a-trade and endless other websites for user feedback on seemingly any product or service from plumbers to toasters. The RAR and DBA directory give marketers a similar level of user insight as these, more consumer focussed sites allow.

These services I am sure will become an increasingly relevant and vital resource for marketers. The sites offer an independent, agnostic view of agency performance through client feedback in the case of the RAR and a best practice guide to buying design and procurement process compatible downloadable information in the case of the DBA Directory. What better way of proving that you’re making the right decision to someone in procurement then showing them that numerous well regarded clients have heaped praise on the same agency that you have selected and that you are following the industries best practice in doing so...also what better way for people in my position to thank their agency partners for doing fantastic work than to give them a leg up with new business by writing a glowing review.

On top of this the systems offer agencies and clients their assurance that if they run a pitch or agency selection process they will guarantee the process to be run fairly. Free of cronyism, nepotism or any other ism that no doubt you have suffered during more old-fashioned and no doubt unfair pitch processes…

In a crowded, difficult, competitive and now procurement scrutinised marketplace it is schemes like these that are going to single businesses out as leaders in their field.

TIMES ARE TOUGH

Follow up article for Design Week about the downturn

June 9th, 2009

Not a great shock to the system. Not much of a 'hold the front page' scoop.

But it succinctly sums up the sentiment of the market and it is beginning to define how we promote ourselves; in fact it's beginning to define how we operate as a business moving forward.

Let me explain.

There has to be appropriateness to communication. When someone whispers we whisper back. When we are shouted at - so we shout back. The same applies to marketing. Our customers, retailers, are being told by their customers, consumers, that times are tough. They are being told directly through research and indirectly through spending preferences changing. Much has been written already about some of the more interesting changes to consumer spending - the queues outside the cobblers; the increase in demand for pastry and lasagne; as consumers look to make the items they already own and the cuts of meat from a Sunday lunch last longer and go further.

As a result and to ensure that they are promoting themselves appropriately the consumer brands are changing their messaging. This can be seen by a number of the more responsive consumer brands - the banks, the leading retailers - M&S reverting to their heritage and the 'penny store'; Honda pulling the life car from Formula One.

And so contextually it comes as no surprise that our customers are passing onto us that times are tough. We are hearing this directly in terms of the effort we make to sit down and listen to our retailers and also indirectly through anecdote and the decline in demand in the market for taking new space.

So how do we respond? What is appropriate? When your customer is telling you they want you to reduce your costs and pass the savings onto them by reducing service charges how do you promote yourself to the same customers without the activity coming across as indulgent and unnecessary.

Well firstly our competitors are broadly in the same boat and rather than looking for a solution many have simply pulled themselves out of the market and stopped promoting themselves altogether. So the first step towards an appropriate response is to do less. After all in a room where no-one is speaking at all you only need to whisper to be heard. So we are whispering.

The next is to get the messaging right.

The market has lost confidence so in a similar move to M&S we're changing the messages from the esoteric to the fundamental. On the much fabled hierarchy of needs we've moved towards the bottom of the pyramid. After all if your customer wants to buy reassurance sell them expertise and experience. Similar to M&S we're not in a world where we can sell our product from the point of view of the 'feeling inside' any more, now it's all about the bottom line. Research that proves the business case for taking a new store and underpins every opportunity. We then reinforce this objective evaluation with confirmation of our operational excellence - that we will attract more people to your shop (industry leading consumer marketing); keep them their for longer (excellent customer service provision); save you money (service charge savings and environmental initiatives that make business more efficient) and be more flexible to your business' changing needs (lease reform and monthly rents).

So we know what we are going to say and how loudly we are going to say it but where is design left. What role has design got to play?

We've got a fantastic track record for commissioning great design.

Beautiful, engaging, effective design work that has helped position us as the pre-eminent property company in Europe.

But when times are tough and your customers are telling you so, is it still appropriate to invest in design as we did when times were more buoyant?

I would argue more than ever. After all our messaging has become more complicated rather than less complicated and it is going to take some brilliant design to get the balance right - to satisfy our audience as well as our commercial needs. To ensure that our marketing materials continue to be effective within the context of an audience that might resent being 'marketed' to.

Our design roster is looking for the balance, finding the appropriate way to communicate, striving for the creative solution that will turn a tough market into an opportunity to position us not only as the company that was there when times were good - but there when times got tough.

We believe that design can do this; uniquely design over everything else can ensure that we are left in the best possible position to reap the rewards from a recovery in the market. After all whilst times are tough at the moment they won't be forever and I believe that the companies that have got the messaging right and continued to promote themselves appropriately (many aren't and are still using last years creative and looking a little crass) these companies will be in the best place to capitalise when the market comes back.

The do's and don'ts of commissioning design for (retail) property marketing

DO:

• Challenge conventional wisdom, there are many established 'norms' in property marketing - challenge them. In almost all cases the established ways of doing things have come about through habit rather than by design. A downturn is the time to challenge conventional wisdom - to propose a better way of doing things
• Remember that property is a people business. To increase effectiveness weave quality consumer research into your messaging. After all is said and done, a retailer simply wants to know who and how many people are likely to visit his shop and what they have to spend
• Research your effect. In the past property marketing has not always had the rigour it maybe should have had. This has meant that within some portions of the UK property marketplace marketing has a low perceived value, some of us are trying to change this....please do the same

DON'T:

• Use the hackneyed, obvious solutions. Monopoly boards are most definitely last decade (or possibly the decade before last)
• Chop and change design suppliers. Property is a long term business so should your relationships be with your design agency partners. A thorough understanding of your business and a campaign approach will make your design more effective
• not listen to your customers (!? A double negative I know but I needed three of each!). Your customers know what they want to buy, even if they don't know it yet. Find out the problems, challenges and opportunities they are faced with and think about how your building will address some or all of these dynamics. Finesse your marketing message and design solution to fit.