I saw a really interesting TV programme a while back.
It featured the designers Richard Seymour and Dick Powell.
They had been asked to design a toilet.
Armitage Shanks, the manufacturers, had commissioned something they wanted to take pride of place in their new catalogue.
So Powell and Seymour did what all the best thinkers do.
They started upstream.
If they were going to come up with a better solution they needed to investigate, and possibly redefine, the problem.
So they found about the different sorts of waste matter it would have to shift.
The different water pressures that were available.
The amount of water that was realistically usable.
Then they looked at materials.
They compared pressure-forming against casting.
Metal against plastic, and both against ceramic.
They factored in hygiene, ease of use, cost of manufacture, installation, storage, longevity, and comfort.
At the end of the exercise they went to present to the management of Armitage Shanks.
They unveiled their design and explained all the benefits.
The management were horrified.
They said, “This doesn’t look anything like a traditional toilet.”
Richard Seymour said, “No, this is much better.”
The management said, “You don’t understand. This doesn’t look anything like a traditional toilet.”
Seymour said, “Of course not, you asked us to design a new toilet.’
The management said, “Yes, but we only wanted you to DESIGN it. We didn’t want you to revolutionise it.”
Richard Seymour went quiet.
Then he turned to Dick Powell an he said, “I think it’s a communication problem.”
Dick Powell said, “Yes. When they said they wanted us to DESIGN a toilet, they actually meant they wanted us to RESTYLE a toilet.”
Richard Seymour whispered, “Basically, what they want is a tarted-up version of the same old solution they’ve always had.”
So Seymour and Powell went away and put a few new curves on the traditional toilet design.
Making it look a bit more fashionable, but otherwise unchanged.
They brought it back to Armitage Shanks and the management were thrilled.
The client said, “Now that’s what we wanted: a new design.’
Armitage Shanks began manufacturing it.
And it received pride of place in their new catalogue.
So it was a language problem.
The client thought design meant the same as style.
But to creative problem-solvers, of course, it’s very different.
Redesign is fundamental and radical.
Whereas restyle is superficial and cosmetic.
We have the same sort of language problem in advertising.
No client can bring themselves to say, “I want the same thing everyone else is doing, just tarted up a bit.”
They obviously can’t say that, so they say, “I want a new exciting solution. Just go wild”
But of course, that usually isn’t what’s wanted at all.
Which is why we need an interpreter.
And that’s exactly what the best account men are.
They take a client brief and translate it into language the creatives cannot misinterpret.
The creatives may not like it, but least they’ll know what they’re supposed to be doing.
And a smaller argument with the account man at the beginning of the process is a lot better than a bigger argument with the client at the end of it.
RSS Feed
Twitter
Email
How true Dave.
Years ago, a restaurant asked me to do some work for him,
“I want the ads to be very bold and creative,” Mr Client said.
Since it was an exotic Oriental place that sold all kinds of politically uncorrect food, one line I wrote read,
“We also serve poison (but only if you ask for me”.
The thinking of course being “one man’s meat …”
The client threw my work and me out.
In the end, he went with “Whatever your piece of cake is, we have it.”
My consolation: he didn’t survive very long - the restaurant, I mean.
i presume he threw you out for using a reworked cliche as a headline when what he really wanted was something bold and creative.
Before the nastiness starts here, I’d like to point out this:
Guys, why every post has to turn into a pub brawl?
It’s getting tired. What you’re debating isn’t even interesting and the remarks aren’t even witty or funny.
Let’s cut the arrogance/touchyness/bitchiness.
Let’s ignore whoever starts being arrogant, touchy or bitchy.
Let’s stop feeding that person’s delusions of grandeur.
You all know exactly what I mean so, be nice to each other and don’t run with scissors.
Slightly off topic, but has anyone been to those public toilet cube on the street? You put coins to go in. A friend of mine has been to a very strange one near the Overseas Visitors Record Office in Borough, you go in, and when the door close, this little container like a pee sink pop out, and you will need to make a poop in a uncomfortable position, which basically you don’t want your bottom to touch the metal because the container is not very deep, you might touch your poop if you seat too close. After a time limited reach, they will tell you to go out asap and the whole room will be washed automatically by water, that’s why when you go in you see the room is all wet. I need to try it one day. Sounds interesting.
G
I agree Anthony.
So Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a yellow card.
I love a passionate debate about ideas, but if it gets nasty or personal I’ll just delete it.
There are other blogs where you can trade insults.
Hi Dave.
Tell me to shut up if I’m wrong, but that seems a bit harsh. Surely Wendy was only being a bit cheeky and provocative with that one?
surely anca is still up for a pop or two?
either way, i think the debate does come down to personal use of descriptive terminology.
we all use words differently.
one definition isn’t any worse than another.
we just have to make sure we use enough words to confirm the brief.
and i think this is better achieved by speaking the way ‘real’ people do.
the world of ‘aesthetics’ ‘dadaism’ and ‘neo-old-school’ should be left to brian sewell.
lets talk to each other like real people do, it wuld lead to less confusing briefs.
but still, can i berate anca a little bit? just a little bit?
Hi Ant.
I wasn’t referring to Wendy, I’m the last person to object to cheeky and provocative.
But I thought Anthony had a fair point.
Borat, Robin, and G were getting upset with each other, and I had to delete a lot of Anca & James stuff for the same reason.
I don’t need that.
Scamp’s blog is the place for slagging off.
http://ex-blank-page.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-reply-to-daves-great-posts-7.html
Ant, the obvious difference between Wendy’s comment and the ones Dave and Anthony were talking about is that Wendy criticised and idea, not a person. I’ve abandoned Scamp’s blog EXACTLY because I’m only interested in ideas, not personal attacks; if Simon wants that kind of blog, it’s his decision. But SOMEHOW the more or less anonymous always-ready-to-fight commenters on Scamp’s blog found it suitable to also transform Dave’s blog into a tabloid about me. Unfortunately I get bored very easily, so I won’t bother to reply to any of those comments anymore – if Dave wants to have a blog about Anca, it’s his personal decision (after all, could I refuse such an honour?).
I like the post Dave it stresses the need for good account personnel. The post emphasizes collaboration.
I’m curious.
You know your audience very well so I’m wondering what percentage of your readers are in account roles.
I hope a lot, your wisdom would help them greatly.
Interestingly, calling Scamps blog a place to fight is fighting talk in itself… but to the topic of the post:
My understanding (yet to find it in my exp) is that many creatives see account handlers as useless in the creative process. This is a perfect example of exactly why good accounts people are so important to the creative process.
Hi Rob.
I don’t think I’m giving away any state secrets saying that Scamp’s blog is for people that like a row.
How many times have you seen the comment, “Enough of this serious stuff Scamp, let’s get back to slagging off Fallons juniors.”
I don’t think it’s a problem either.
Everything has it’s place and everyone chooses what they like.
That’s why Scamp’s blog is so big, a lot of people want that release.
Hi Dave, I think you’ve done the right thing, and I am very happy you helped me out from the trouble I caused.
I’ve been thinking about what I’ve done a lot lately, and thanks to Robin he made me to read the book ” how to win friends and inspire people” again. So it was a big lesson for myself.
I was also thinking, it is necessary to restrict the freedom of speech, and I think it does need to stop people hurting others, some house rules is necessary to be set to protect some readers. I think if we all sharing experiences and ideas, we will all be happy to hear them.
G
Gotcha, Dave. Makes complete sense.
Back on the subject at hand, that reminds me of Kevin Keegan’s recent second spell at Newcastle.
Mike Ashley is the kind of bloke who desperately needs to be liked and he wanted the fans to like him. So he hires Keegan, telling him he wants to build a team that plays with style, flair etc. Keegan takes the job and sets about trying to deliver that – reminding Ashley that he needs serious funds to bring back the glory days. Ashley thinks ‘sod that’ and uses a run of bad results as an excuse to get rid of Keegan. If Keegan had known the reality behind the ‘brief’ he’d never have taken the job.
Miscommunication is my pet hate. As a young creative working in the advertising industry, I’ve never worked on a brief that hasn’t been affected by it. Clients seem all too willing to throw around phrases like ‘we really want to push the boundaries with this one’ and ‘it’s got to be fresh and innovative’ when all they’re really looking for is the same ad as the last agency produced, but in a different colour. What’s worse is that when the client doesn’t like our ideas – it’s the creatives that seem to take the hit for it. It’s a frustrating cycle that I’m sure I’ll have to endure for some time to come.
r2d2s_uncle.
If you want to resubmit that post with the first sentence deleted I’ll put it up.
I would resubmit but my browser cookies are on auto-delete and I have no record of what I wrote now. If you still have a copy of my original comment please accept my blessing to edit out the first part yourself although I do think free speech is a virtue that should be honoured.
Okay r2d2, here’s what you wrote:
Re. the post, clarity of brief is integral to efficiency so it’s in the best interest of the account people to get it right from the start.
Miscommunication, and even an entire lack of communication, have always been responsible for my ‘harder briefs.’ As a relatively newbie advertiser, I’ve realised that the first thing I need to learn is to ensure that the brief I have is on point. I am learning to challenge things and question everything.
Perhaps briefs should be called ‘Creative’ or ‘Don’t Even Think About It’. Would save a lot of grinding and gnashing of teeth…
it’s a bit like the classic Monty Python sketch with the accountant who says he wants to be a Lion tamer.
We’ve all encountered the client who claims they want a revolution. Only to them revolution means wearing a slightly odd hat one day per week. Weather permitting!
I remember that programme, they had to basically sneak into the presentions to get heard come the end.
They increased the height of the back of the toilet on one design, as men tend to pee against the side or back to keep the noise down. Thus giving them an easier target. Brilliant.
Armitage Shanks ignored their input, but still dropped their names in the press launch. Terrible.
Great guys, beautiful drawings.
Hi, I WAS that guy…or one of them…..
It was Shires, not Armitage Shanks…but the basic song is the same.
Dick and I knew that there was a difference in vocabulary right from the start. The Marketing Director asked for ‘classicism with a hint of revival’, so he clearly thought design meant styling. My personal comment to him after the briefing was that I was disappointed with his brief, because it didn’t ask us to address the fundamental problems with toilets, but we tackled them anyway….
All along, the client wanted a re-styled toilet, and he got one. He just didn’t get a better toilet (which is what WE wanted to do).
Shires business model seemed to be based on a pretty sound concept: let other people take the risk in innovation, and then produce a simulation at a lower cost and reap the profits. This works if someone else is leading the charge. If they’re not, you’re stuffed.
You can lead a horse to water, you can even strap it’s head under the surface with gaffa tape, but you wont make it drink unless you first make it thirsty.
It’s over 10 years since we made those programs, and what we’ve learned since is the importance of preparing the client in advance for the ‘violence of the new’. In product design, we tend to have less account men in the mix, so it’s usually up to us to develop the necessary communication skills.
In the 21st Century, we’re ALL going to need them.
WOW, I’m thrilled.
One of my design heroes reads this blog.
Everyone: this is Richard Seymour’s company’s website, check it out: http://www.seymourpowell.com/
At art school, a lot of my friends and room mates were studying Industrial Design.
I took a lot from their ID design principles and applied it to advertising.
They are in 3D mass production, we’re in 2D mass production.
And, sure enough, everything Richard has written here applies equally as much to advertising as design.
Thanks a lot Richard, we can all learn a lot from what you’ve written.
well that’s cool. where can we buy the dvd of the tv show? now that we’ve all been led to water and are thirsty.
Richard, the website itself is PERFECT (I’ll have to congratulate the Sennep guys, too – for those of you who don’t know it, Sennep is also responsible for BBH’s website), the works are great and the case studies are really helpful – there’s more branding than most ad agencies would ever bother to do. At a time when most products are the same, I think it’s vital to rely on great design. Thanks for stopping by, Richard.
Anca,
Interesting thing is that Richard and Dick were in advertising before they switched to design.
They kind of did what I did, but the other way round.
I think it shows and it gives them a unique take, a different, broader kind of thinking.
I learned another really big lesson from Richard and I’m going to do a post about that.
By the way Richard, Vinny (see comment above) was the Irishman in New York who did Budweiser’s world-famous ‘Wassup’ campaign.
Like him, I’d like to know where we can get the DVDs.
To me it sounds very much like lateral thinking: while working in advertising many times you have to do branding because there’s no real product advantage. So they seem to have transformed branding into a form of actually ADDING product advantages – “brilliant” is a weak term to describe that!
Side Note: Thanks for your post on our Blog Dave, I figured I could have left a reply there but who knows if you intend to continue reading it!
It sounds like a brilliant idea… something that might take a while to pull together, but we’ll give it a shot, let’s see what happens - can’t think of a good enough reason not to do it. Simply, that means we should and we will.
Nice to know we have more than 3 readers
and that one of those is someone who we admire.
Cheers,
Mike
Hi Guys
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzOXLlsZ_Ck
Here is the link to entire Better By Design lecture
http://www.designlondon.net/content.php
Here is details of where to get DVD of ‘Better by Design’ series
http://www.designcouncil.info/betterbydesign/video.html
Brilliant John, well done, thanks a lot.
Thanks for all the support guys, and thanks for posting the links John. There’s a Q&A you may find interesting from last year in Melbourne at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxAp5_Qil9c
Vinny, LOVED the Bud work.
By the way, Dick wasn’t in advertising…he’s the dyed-in-the-wool product designer…whilst I studied graphic design initially, and then went into advertising and film production design before joining him to form Seymourpowell. I’ve always thought it was our main strength..a sort of x and y axis on stuff.
And to Anca’s point, we often refer to the kind of product design that we do as ‘three-dimensional branding’. We don’t do ‘Seymourpowells’, we do ‘Lynxs’ or ‘Tefals’ or ‘Blumenthals’…
Dave,
One of the Sunday Times 100 best blogs.
Congratulations.
Well deserved.
Thanks for the wisdom.
Ben
Thanks Ben.
And you’re writing style was noted.
I’m trying.
To write.
Like Michael Caine.
Talks.
Love the Q&A link Richard.
Especially the Renaissance connection.
I hadn’t thought of it before, but isn’t that what art schools were always supposed to be teaching?
Creativity, instead of just a single craft or discipline.
Bring it on.
That’s the trouble with some clients, they only think of no.1.
Dave
I read some. They said, in the Times, Genius. Well done.
‘write like Michael Caine talks’. he does speak in headlines it’s true.
Not many people know that.
Ciaran
thanks for the links john w. great stuff.
and congrats on the well-deserved top 100 blogs nod dave. hope it doesn’t crash the servers. or draw the riff-raff.
i’m off to drink wine coz Richard liked my work. i love the internets!
No client really wants anything original or different or new. It scares them. They just want to know you’re capable of it if they ever change their mind.
I don’t know if anyone saw Heston Blumenthal try and redesign the Little Chef menu on C4 recently. The client in this case was the MD of Little Chef, wanted ‘blue sky thinking’, radical changes but in reality ended up only agreeing to a restyle of one of his diners, fearing his traditional Chef all day breakfast eaters would be up in arms. Why do it in the first place? Good PR strategy by Little Chef?
This reminds me of last time I went to a hairdresser’s and asked how much a haircut was… went ahead with said haircut… went to pay… the price had risen! When I asked why, I was informed that I had received a RESTYLE, not a CUT! Who knew there was a difference?!
[...] an exercise in beautification. Its about communication and problem solving. Advertising luminary Dave Trott discusses a particular problem when a client wants something to look nice and the designer wants [...]
Thank for the links good job on making the top 100! I am just trying to get a page rank of 3
Thanks for the great links and congrats on the the top 100. I am just trying to get a page 3 ranking.