Clicking through Cyberspace I happened upon Scriv's first blog entry at Fast Company. In his inaugural post, "Did we ever remember design?", Paul argues that companies continue to ignore the success of tech titans like Apple and Nintendo and, seemingly, suffer for it.
I don't think that's true. In the last fifteen years that I have managed and studied business I've seen more companies add design as an important part of their planning, manufacturing, and marketing processes. As consumers have made it clear that design is an important criteria in their purchase making decisions a lot of companies have paid attention and acted accordingly. Of course not everyone values design with the same intensity as Apple or, say BMW. A large, large majority of businesses simply can't afford to throw money around like these two can because their products don't sell at premium price points. That said there are companies who can, and have, thrown money at design and yet they still don't succeed as well because they're trying to make bad products simply look good like Dell or Ford. In their case design isn't the issues, lack of innovation is.
More features and market share aren't necessarily a negative. Just as there are customers who see design as being important there are others who specifically look for more features. Even Apple knows this otherwise why would they spend so much time, effort, money, and space for listing every product feature possible for every product they sell. And If I could trounce IBM in the web services game because I had more market share than they did, you can bet your ass I would—bigger, faster, cheaper, smarter.
While Apple's added sex appeal definitely helped sell more products that's not the sole reason for Apple's turn around. Trimming the product line from thirty-five different models to four saved many-millions of dollars in manufacturing, inventory, and marketing costs while making it easier for consumers decide which product to buy. Job's crusade to end fruitless research and development projects that didn't have solid commercial potential also saved a lot of money and therefore had a hand in Apple's turn around. It was good, solid management combined with channeled innovation and street smarts saved Apple. Candy colored plastic just helped them look good doing it.
Now, here's something to remember: Companies like Apple or Nintendo "win" because they innovate. They make products that work, function, look, and feel better than their competitor's. Design is but one step in that process, not the champion.
Join the fray by reading through and commenting at the end.
Come on Greg... Don't take cheap shots at Ford. Their new Taurus, er Five Hundred, er Taurus design was a really solid design effort like 10 years ago, when it was called the Passat. And it was manufactured by Volkswagen.
The Ford 500 looks like the Passat?
Ford can't get no respect? Well it becasue they don't respect the consumer.
As for Apple/Nintendo.They innovate. They are in tune with their times and consumers
I think most companies don't embrace good design because most companies, and their ideas, suck. I'm thankful they don't -- this way the good design is more likely to go with the good products. This is also a good sign for our craft; good designers don't work on lame projects just to get a buck or two.
> The Ford 500 looks like the Passat?
Yes, it does.
> good designers don't work on lame projects just to get a buck or two.
Taking my Ford examples further, click the link above. Jay Mays, whom I believe to be a fantastic designer, works at Ford and works on lame projects (when compared to what he was doing at Audi and Volkswagen).
Rocky beat Design in the third one...maybe the forth. Can't remember. Which one had the Russian?
I think Paul's a little big for his britches. He's all talk and doesn't have anything to back it up.
In my experience it's not the un-design of products that's their undoing, it's the overdesign. Apple and Nintendo succeed because while, yes, their products are sleek, the design pretty much falls away and allows you to focus on what's there which is a quality product.
Meanwhile companies like Dell try to convince me I should buy a clunky PC because instead of improving on the PC itself they've put it in a case resembling a space ship.
To say that Dell hasn't succeeded as well as Apple is seems ridiculous to me. Perhaps they haven't succeeded in your demographic as well as Apple, but they move a solid product in volume that Apple can only dream of (excepting the ipod, of course.) Just because the new spaceship Dells don't appeal to the design elite doesn't mean Dell as a company isn't successful. : )
(Diisclaimer: I've never purchased a Dell computer for myself, but I wanted to point that out anyway.)
> To say that Dell hasn't succeeded as well as Apple is seems ridiculous to me.
I don't think they have been as dramatically successful as Apple. In the last year or so their sales and stock have been in decline. I have yet to hear a news story in the last year that talks about Dell's Apple-like success (meaning they have innovated beyond consumer's and Wall Street's expectaions).
Scott, look at their stock prices. Dell's in a bind.
As for Ford, I've never been a fan, but here lately I see them trying quite a bit harder than GM or Mopar at least. I know I LOVE my Volvo S40, and find it just loaded with smart design touches, and they've also done well with the Mustang and some of the new Lincoln models (despite the idiotic naming scheme).
Just a few years ago, people were clamoring for a Ford that looked as good as an Audi or VW, and (I know I'm going to irk some VW fans here), the 500 is probably better made than the Passat.
> the 500 is probably better made than the Passat.
Get out of my house! There is no possible way that Ford's piece of crap is better than my Passat. Zero. It may want to look like a Passat (well, an older model, thank you Jay-I regurgitate my designs-Mays) but it's not even close.</irk>
Some companies try to apply design as a cosmetic, as styling. They think of it as an add-on, not an integral part of the product. If it seems to work then they don't change their attitude about it, and even will sit on their hands and not continue to work on the design aspect. If design doesn't seem to help the product sales, they have an excuse to ignore it in the future and tout something else while they wonder why the product is failing.
Good companies make good design part of the whole product development process, and then they keep working on it. Design is a craft which means you can constantly make it better. Even the best design will sour after awhile if you let it sit out too long. It must improve and change as the marketplace changes, as people change, as attitudes change. You have to keep design fresh in order for it to function at it's highest level, and you have to always make sure it's design and not cosmetics.
I'm not a huge fan of Ford but last year I was looking for an affordable SUV with great gas mileage (oxymoron), low and behold they make a hybrid Ford Escape SUV. One of two hybrid SUVs on the market in the US. The other being Lexus's RX Hybrid which I can't afford. I have no allegiance to Ford but they get some credit in my book for innovating in an area where others are not.
Please let me clarify; yes Dell sells lots of computers. But you don't see a cult of Dell. Nobody says "Oooooh ahh I have the latest Dell!" Where Dell fails is trying to penetrate designer demographic.
They're under the misnomer that if they design a computer that looks like a space ship, the hip will want to purchase it. In truth, Dell's customer base doesn't give a rat's ass what the computer looks like. And didn't they just discontinue their iPod competitor after miserable sales?
The point I'm trying to illustrate is that these companies fumble in their attempts to innovate in the way that Apple does. So instead of actually innovating, the mimic. Perhaps if they took the time and energy away from space ship casing, they could refocus it on building a more reliable and faster computer.
> Get out of my house! There is no possible way that Ford's piece of crap is better than my Passat.
Good one. Here' s my two cents. I've rebuilt cars and trucks with my father, from body work to interiors to engines, transmissions, etc.
An engine is an engine, a piston is a piston, a gear is a gear, and so on. And many of those parts come from the same or similar suppliers, regardless of the vehicle's brand name.
Every company has lemons. Honda for example, the transmission in the Odyssey mini-van is a piece of junk. The Ford Windstar engine from the late 1990s is a great workhorse as long as you watch the head gasket. My sister's Ford Explorer has 460,000 kms on it (285,000 miles). The Passat has had a slew of consumer complaints. And so on.
What I find really frustrating is the lack of quality across the board, from all auto companies. It's not hard to build a bulletproof vehicle that'll run for half a million clicks. They just don't bother to do it.
Sorry Greg. I knew I was on thin ice with that one. But VW has been positively plagued with reliability issues over the past few years.. to an embarrassing extent. The things that they've built their reputation on and the reasons people buy them - reliability and performance - are just not impressive right now. Which is a shame, as I quite like VWs (and Audis), and I truly hope they pull it together and return to the attributes they've long been admired for.
That said, if someone were considering a VW, I wouldn't point them to Ford, although I might point them toward the previously mentioned Volvo S40 or a well-equipped Mazda3 (another Ford product).
Oh, and I'm not saying the Ford 500 is a better all-around car than the Passat, just that it's probably better made/more reliable. Probably. Maybe.
> Oh, and I'm not saying the Ford 500 is a better all-around car than the Passat, just that it's probably better made/more reliable.
Ok now you're just not making sense. :) There is no way an American car is made better made than a German one. None! Zilch!
Greg, I think you're confusing style with design. To me, Apple trimming the product line down is in fact, an aspect of design.
To me, design goes beyond just communicating visually, it includes everything from the way the company operates, to the mechanics of the product, to how they sell it, and more. Forget Apple and Dell. Think of companies like 37 Signals, SlideShowPro, The Body Shop and many others (sorry, I can't think of any really good examples) that aren't as visible as Apple, but have achieved success through creating products that appeal to customers without breaking the bank for either the company or the customers.
Greg, truth be told, ALL the Germans have been struggling with quality control, particularly in electronics components over the past 5 years or so. VW/Audi had been hit hardest, but all of them have slipped to some extent or another.
But I'm not trying to poor-mouth your VW. I know you love it, and there's a lot in a VW to love. A Passat is undoubtedly going to be a more satisfying car to drive than a 500, and (getting back to the original topic), more stylish as well. Nevertheless, the Ford may be the more reliable car. Maybe. Time will tell.
> Greg, I think you're confusing style with design. To me, Apple trimming the product line down is in fact, an aspect of design.
No, that's product management.
> To me, design goes beyond just communicating visually, it includes everything from the way the company operates, to the mechanics of the product, to how they sell it, and more.
You've just described public relations, operations, engineering, marketing and retail. You could say that there is a design to how the entire process works (you could also say it's engineered, managed, crafted, etc.) but that takes a lot of credit away from these other functions of business which is the point I was trying to make.
Paul, like others, throws out design as if that's all that's needed to create success. And that's simply not the case.
> But I'm not trying to poor-mouth your VW.
I know, I'm just having some Thursday fun.
Sherif (and Greg), the word you're looking for in this essay is "Brand" — Apple (and other smart companies) create a consistent and appealing brand language (partly through design) and other's don't, for a variety of reasons, most of which I file under lack of focus, vision, and discipline. Appearance and style is only a part, designing and delivering the Brand [message] goes beyond. Most people (and firms) who call themselves 'designers' don't currently go there.
This whole thing reminds me of the "lipstick on a pig" analogy, design is an important part of the equation, but it's not the only part.
> Sherif (and Greg), the word you're looking for in this essay is "Brand"
The brand, to me, is the customer experience with the product or service. It's either good and the customer likes it, or it's not and the customer dislikes it or is ho hum about it.
I don't really like the term 'brand' very much. I think of companies having either good products or mud-sucking-lick-shoes kind of products (and degrees in between), and companies having a reputation, good or bad, etc. The term 'brand' brings in a lot of artsy fartsy notions, I just don't like it.
Good design creates the brand, almost by default. If the iPod sucked when you used it, no amount of clever branding or market positioning or pricing strategies or advertising would have made it a success. ZUNE, anyone?
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
And, Ford rocks! I have a pimped out 1967 Ford F-100, with red crushed velvet and quilted suede in the cab. Sweeeeet. But with a souped up V8 engine, I don't drive it much, it gets well under 10 mpg.
You assume the inverse:
>Good design creates the brand, almost by default. If the
>iPod sucked when you used it, no amount of clever branding
>or market positioning or pricing strategies or advertising would >have made it a success.
A well-executed brand strategy won't rescue a poor product, but a great product might never make it without connecting emotionally through a well-designed brand personality. You think Apple's happens by accident? (Coincidentally, Apple's industrial design language is very different, personality-wise, from their marketing 'voice'). Understanding how it all fits together and crafting a seamless experience is where design gets interesting.
Hah. Did anyone notice the shot at Sony? Ken Kutaragi is the former CEO of SCEI. Hah don't think PS3 is innovative, Greg?
One piece missing from Scriv's thesis is manufacturing. Example: Volkswagen recognized the importance of design and, starting with the New Beetle in 1997, release a series of superlatively-designed cars including the 4th-generation Jetta/Golf/GTI and the 5th-generation Passat. Unfrotunately they tried to control costs by neglecting supplier & manufacturing quality, and after explosive growth in North America in 1997-2001 saw a collapse caused by recalls & reliability problems. They are only now recovering with the well-designed and manufactured 5th-generation Jetta/Golf/GTI and 6th-generation Passat.
> Hah don't think PS3 is innovative, Greg?
As much as I want it to be, no, it isn't. Sony has gone the way of Microsoft, making poorly executed copies of their competitors products and ideas. The PSP has more going for it than the PS3.
Sorry Greg, my bad. I see your point :-) Very illuminating.
You have struck a chord in me! I have wondered for years about the Big 3's lack of Design Sense. A NA car distinguishes itself by BAD design, nay lousy design. When i look closely at the big 3's car design it always seems that they are "missing" the fine point. Their car designs irate the eye, the lines are not as pleasing as they should be. Some of their car designs when looked from the rear profile remind me of big ugly butts, or big butts wearing pants that are cheap and ill-fitting and two sizes two small. I can count on one hand the number of pleasing car designs ... the Ford 500 and Focus being two. But has anyone seen any uglier designs than the Chyrslers? or the ugly offerings from Chevy? God should smack those car makers up the head and wake them up. DISCLAIMER: I have never bought a NA car: Fiesta, Nissan, VW, Peugeot, and currently.... Toyota ;-)
PS With all the money Ford GM et all had over the years why did they not hire GREAT designers and put out competitive fine crafted vehicles?? (Good design leads to great products 'cause it harmonizes form and function). No respect for consumers is why! About the only mass market left to these guys is the Car rental biz.
I always attributed Apple and Nintendos success to their supreme forte in user experience.