Design Control Clients

When I first thought to do the final post of this discussion on clients, this was the picture that came to mind. However the humour involved in today's encounters has turned a little more cynical, with a better rendition being this funny video found on youtube! Is it true that the 'customer is always right?' Can a designer have any control of the visual outcome of a project or is it the plain truth that all aspects are under the control of the guy with the purse strings? How can clients be influenced as well, and how can become clients? There are a great deal of questions associated with this area of design control it is again a large subject.

I am a big fan of 'Mad Men'. Not only a well crafted tv series, but also delivers the dream notion on what graphic design and client relationship should be like. It is however, set in the 60's, which makes an amazing difference in the understanding of the way this relationship works. They are treated like they know what they are talking about. Like they know the difference between right and wrong. But most of all, they seem to be respected for their work. What seemed to have happened is the technology revolution. A damning blot on the creditability factor of all creatives. Computers made the life of 'would-be' designers a lot more synthesized with that of a creative with a natural talent. Clients believe that computers make life, or at least work, easier, and therefore demand designers to comply to such aspects. They also believe having a computer and a copy of some arts package gives them the entitlement of knowing how to dictate the commission. Before saying that clients are simply bottomless money pits who pander to artist whim, I am not. There is however a big difference between having a personal viewpoint and having a strong aptitude and educationally supportive background in a subject. After all, I could probably go an perform surgery on my relatives if it were simply a case of thinking I know something about medicine. I don't, so I don't wander down that path.

Art is its own worse enemy. The simple fact that it proliferates society with both cheap and expensive design aspects is a cause to understand why people tend not to distinguish between the two. They see the values of capitalism as the factor. Therefore if a product sells or a person receives more work, they relate it to the look and feel. Many of us use the sense of visualisation as the first step in understanding something. The problem is that seeing isn't always believing, and that is the crux to the issue of respect toward a creative and the client. How many times have I heard; "He's got that so I want it." or "I've seen this and it looks nice, so can you copy it somehow?", or "I drew this, can you do something with it." At present, I am teaching through the process of lateral thinking and visual communication with my students and I can see how deep and heavy the subject is. So I can only assume that the students themselves are overwhelmed by it all. So, to try and get a client to see what needs to be considered to even think of a good idea is beyond the scope of rational thinking. Especially when they only see that the pushing of a pencil or mouse is the only aspect to design anyone need to understand. Almost as if the role of artist has moved from blue collar to white collar, or below.

So, how can creatives and designers work together along this double edged sword? Difficult question and apparently no answer. People with money are not always right. Empowering them with that feeling, also stifles creativity. Paying for something should not always mean control. Its odd that as I teach and we hand out briefs which define strict criteria by which the project must be completed, it is odd to see that never has there been a time when such a thing has occurred in a job. So why make believe to new creatives that the scope of a project is based on defined criteria when in fact it is based on the whims of the clients. Which, I can say from experience, tends to change on a daily to weekly basis. That also generates a sting in the tail, as much of the time it seems to reflect badly on the creative rather than the client. The whole blog could turn over into a list of bad experiences that have been endured, but I will avoid that. The strangely funny thing is, that during the development of this blog and the posting of the 'Client vs Designer' video I have had many comments from creatives basically stating how true it was to see that.

Creatives need work, clients need designs. What is a difficult challenge is to negate the terribly destructive middle ground that seems to fog the notion that creatives are tools instead of talented entities that deliver a vision based on an understanding of their art. So to round this off, it would be interesting to know if anyone believe; that the client is ALWAYS right or not? And whether the creative should know the humility of bending away from their ego and delivering work that is acceptable to the market instead of being their brain child?