Put that as a slide in your next presentation. That'll be a crowd pleaser.
Said by a good friend of mine this morning.
« Ethical Policy | Main | Should I sign up to this? You decide. »
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Your Information
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
They never told me fire eating was part of the planning job. Ah well...it's off to the circus for me.
Posted by: Will | Aug 29, 2007 at 09:56
Ha, try working in a marketing and design company. Clients think that is a general term for providing the moon on a bloody stick every day. Ah well, it makes the job interesting!
Posted by: minxlj | Aug 29, 2007 at 11:19
I would suggest that the more specific you are in communicating what it is you can deliver, the easier it would be for clients commission it.
I can see how readers of this blog, and the wider associated community would see 'marketing' and 'design' sitting very snugly together. But for me, with my business school degree (shared by many FMCG executives - the sorts who I presume commission marketers and designers) I don't automatically equate the two.
In my experience, marketing and design companies don't necessarily make it easy to 'get' what their strengths are.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 29, 2007 at 11:37
A very valid final point Tom, but marketing directors are also at fault in asking the wrong questions of the wrong agencies.
And as someone who went to business school and not art school, I'm really surprised that you don't equate design with marketing. First P of marketing - product. Very much tied up with design as well as functionality in my eyes.
Posted by: John Dodds | Aug 29, 2007 at 19:26
I just break 'marketing' into more elements that just those that a design agency can deliver - like, for example, distribution.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 29, 2007 at 20:33
Absolutely Tom, I'm always banging on about that. But I'd be tempted to say that the design input is increasingly important/effective in marketing and that advertising is increasingly less important/effective. Distribution probably trumps them both.
Posted by: John Dodds | Aug 29, 2007 at 22:31
Into what constituent parts would you break product design ? ie.
- packaging
- function
- are we including branding (both overall graphic look and feel as well as intangible tone of voice)
- etc
Posted by: Tom | Aug 30, 2007 at 09:15
I would say that I am thinking of product aesthetic and functionality as real differentiators in a crowded marketplace. I suppose that might be termed industrial design as distinct from packaging and direct branding elements even thought they are, of course, designed.
You make me realise there are a very wide range of businesses that could be labelled as part of the "design" sector. We should discuss this face to face some time.
Posted by: John Dodds | Aug 30, 2007 at 13:52
We could have a fight about it, as well. I'm smaller than you, but my hands can move really, really quickly.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 30, 2007 at 15:42
I'll use Ben as a shield!
Posted by: John Dodds | Aug 30, 2007 at 19:24
We could have a pint.
Posted by: John Dodds | Aug 30, 2007 at 19:25
Sorry - it was a mis-spelling. Pint, I meant PINT. Of course. what an excellent idea.
Posted by: Tom | Aug 31, 2007 at 13:58
Maybe you could make the move from insurance to lion taming progressively, for example, through banking?
Posted by: Rob Mortimer | Aug 31, 2007 at 14:08