Give samples of well designed work and point them to sites with well designed work. You can only lead the horse to the water but you can’t make him drink. You might be fighting a loosing battle, so pick your fights.

People who are know-it-alls are hard to educate.
I have been fighting a 2-year battle with a decision-maker-person who insists on using Helvetica for EVERYTHING.

Yea but if you give them 20 examples of good sites and throw in 1 crappy one they inevitably like the crappy one the best...

Can we know more about your problem? Educate them on good design... well you can give them a reading list of a good hundred books lol.

Conversation about common goals would be my suggested route. Focus on the goal/s and think about how your design idea might ( or might not ) achive it/them. Explain what you think the weakness of the current solution is - beyond ’it sucks’. Think about the con side of your idea/s too. Sometimes change for it’s own sake is expensive & does nothing. Change needs to be justified. And what Dan said.

as for the Helvetica problem...

Make a mockup of some project but make it really badly. Then duplicate the mockup but change the font to something like univers or Akzidenz Grotesk or whatever you want to use. (something closer to helvetica would be easier) *Also modify the new layout to make it the one they will choose!

Then you give it to the decision makers and ask which one they like better. (Or if they know less you can ask which type they like better.) They will probably assume you are talking about the layout difference (not even noticing you changed the type) and (hopefully) choose the one with the font you want to use!

Just get them to sign off on it so when you start using your font you will have their signature to fall back on ;)

thanks- see, we have an issue critique next week and i am presenting how the design has changed and where i would like it to go in the future- i work for IN THESE TIMES magazine (www.inthesetiems.com) and before I got on board, their design was terrible. I have redesigned basically everything since then, but sometimes I feel like we can go farther with some of the layout- stray from the branded magazine style with our features/culture pieces- and this last issue i fought tooth and nail for it- and I won that battle. its just hard telling someone, no, this will work, just because you haven’t been exposed to certain things doesn’t mean they are bad... yada yada. i just fear future design arguments- and want to have a really compelling argument next week during the critique. thanks for any ideas and suggestions!

Ahh then what ebin said. Make up a simple report explaining why you made all the decisions you made. And it would help to have examples of other magazines/ publications that do the same thing to show them that other people are doing it and it’s not a risk but the right thing to do.

Simple and to the point would probably be best, like if on one page you had their design on one side and yours on another and a simple explanation of why yours works better.

well the basis of my argument is “why-design for a reason”- which is some of the breakthoughs i have been pushing lately. if there is no justified reason for what is being done based on the content, then it shouldn’t be done. the troubles i have root from them not understanding the designed interpretation of their content. For instance, there was a story about funding the left ( what everyone knows but noone will say) in our last issue, so I chose the font Heathen (http://www.myfonts.com/fonts/canadatype/heathen/) and noone understood and thought it would be non-legible. I used larger similar swashes and swoops on the page as graphic elements that complemented the font- and they asked if i should put money signs in them. eventually, i won the argument.
I will definitely grab some other magazines that have similar styles and whatnot to the looks and feel i am trying to achieve, but its not easy, as they always refer to other lefty publications (which don’t have the greatest design either) oy.

How about:

“You hired me to be the Art Director of this publication. Can we all review my job description?”

haha- well a favorite of mine is there is a reason there is an F in my BA and not yours...

Example arguments are fine but then we run the risk of only allowing for derivative design work. It would be nice if we didn’t have to explain every tiny design decision we make.

You have to explain everything in terms of solving their communication issues, not aesthetic issues. “How things look” is giving open season on the “I like it/I don’t like it” mentality to the lay person. How things WORK is the logic that sells concepts.

ChrisL

Picking your battles is key. If they perceive you as difficult or a prima donna they will be resistant to your ideas whether they are good or not. You may have to concede on smaller points in order to make your larger points and preserve good relations. I always had to teach my design assistants this fact, which runs counter to the idea that you should never compromise your design aesthetic. Fact is, you work for them.

Another tip - put in something you know they’ll want to change so you can give them that right away. My old boss for example hated green (how do you hate a color???) so I’d put something green in there to let him feel like he was top dog.

Nothing is more frustrating than “I just don’t like it” or “it’s not there yet” but it can be hard to get non-designers to be more specific than that.

You can show them mags like Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly (altho in truth I haven’t looked at them recently..) which do wildly creative designs in the well but stick to their formulas for the front and backmatter. I don’t think it matters if they are in different genres.

I don’t play tricks on my department. I just espouse my philosophy when I get the chance and through patience, logic and successes I have changed some minds.

What I give them to start off with is my best shot knowing the predispositions and the creative philosophy we have agreed on. It almost always changes, and not always for the worst.

Sometimes, sometimes (gulp), they are actually right.

peace

“put in something you know they’ll want to change so you can give them that right away”

Alexy Brodovich’s technique.

ChrisL

I could see this backfiring in a big way…

peace

The best way to talk to your boss(es) is to talk to your boss(es). I feel for your situation. Here’s a great quote that is part of a short article entitled, “The Power of Accountability.” It is more directed at the boss, but I think those of us who are employees can learn from it as well.

“Open, honest conversations have to happen between managers when departments are interdependent and need accountability [ownership for results or non-results] from each other. Discussing difficult issues that may involve a group or team member who is a barrier is extremely important.”

You can replace “group or team member who” with anything I think and still you find that communication within a company is key.

I agree that you do need to find the right words to use. The wrong words can put your boss(es) on the defensive immediately and that won’t take you very far. I enjoy the threads like these as I think there is a lot to learn from the experiences of others.

Part of being an art director is being pragmatic at times, and creative at others. there are times when you’ll be right and wrong and times when they will be right and wrong. the biggest mistake I see art directors make is to try and change everything too soon. Change the way a firm or design house has been doing things for years is playing with fire. Of course they hired you to bring your expertise, but it doesn’t mean throwing everyone in a loop. if your the creative director...that is to be expected, you should almost be nuts. As an art director you should be half-way, on both sides.

the creative part of this business is one of the key parts but it’s not the only one. Accountants, AE’s, junior designers, project managers and so forth, are all accustomed to the way it’s been done. It doens’t mean it’s right, and your ultimate goal is to change it , but don’t shake the cage to hard. time and patience. do you know how many times I’ve seen an art director insist on using certain fonts and the production studio doesn;t even have the postcript version, they in turn try and get the company to buy the font, which is useless unless the client demands that font . It’s a viscious circle and you probably don’t know how hard it is to appease a design sometimes. you just pick and choose a font, click and choose an image. The other’s are left to color correct, prep the files for printer. sometimes the files that are at your disposal, aren’t sufficient enought for certain print jobs, the agency won’t budge and the production studio has to somehow juggle!

Art directors that have had past experience in production work are rare but a gold item. they are the sweetest thing. I swear to you.

- they know that putting white text in front of an image in quark or indesign, means the RIP will raster it at halftones and not spots, so the text will be only 150 lines per inch ( 300dpi) at max when it should be 1200dpi.

- they know that making images radiant with RGB colors or CMYK ICC profiles that don’t match the printer is fruitless.

- they know that creating thin hairlines (.5 or smaller) in 4 colour process is playing with fire.

- they know that the font family you chose, only has three fonts in the family , with no small caps, decent bolds, etc. too bad you like it, it’s their problem.

- they know that the insane layout you did in photoshop with gradients will take 12 hours to prep instead of five. the job is due for client approval in six. too bad it’s their problem... you like it.

this is just the tip of the iceberg. I’m not saying you’re not right about improving the designs, I’m saying that the technology, manpower and expertise in this business is real and you can’t overthrow it in a few weeks. Patience and cunning my dear.

I read most, but not all the comments in this thread and my first thought upon reading the initial post is to do a layout a standards guide then sit down with them. Walk through it with them and explain why each piece is the way it is and why it can’t be something else and where the flexibility lies with each piece.

There is need for consistency in publication design, even if it means consistently different but it should still carry something over such as style. Lots of magazines switch up fonts and layouts but if you ripped a page from the magazine you’d still know which magazine it came from. For instance GQ generally uses different fonts but you still know it’s a GQ piece from the feel of their use and photography. Rolling Stone is a classic example, although I’ve always found it a bit off for my taste.

Don’t think of it as a “battle” it will put you on the defensive. Have confidence in what you’re doing, but listen to them as well. Explain the logic and reasoning for your design decisions. Seek to educate. Don’t be defensive. Give a little now and then. Don’t lose your temper (I just did this a few days ago) bad idea. Throw some technological terms in there now and then to show that you’re an expert (and watch their eyes glaze over).

The general pattern I am seeing is to try a variety of approaches, and to keep changing tactics. See what works.

Tibor Kalman used to talk and talk about his designs at presentations, and go into great detail and descriptions before actually showing the work. After a while, the clients would be begging to see the work, and would be satisfied with almost anything.

What usually works for me the brute-force method of handouts. Spend time writing a detailed presentation on the work, and the people you are up against will probably not read or understand it entirely, but instead take your word for it. Any dissent can be read as a misinterpretation of an irrefutable argument. Business people are deeply afraid of looking stupid in front of their peers, and will sooner lie than risk appearing vulnerable. Knowing really is half the battle.

So prepare a good argument beforehand, and be sure to bring up comparative studies in the legibility of bold, full caps and sans-serif type, and how each of these factors is affected by leading, line-length and word-spacing. That shuts them up quickly. Another good one is anything relating to The History of Type, 1810–1885. There is enough ammunition in there to wreck any counter-argument of personal taste if you have some good notes, and lull the antagonist into a hypnotic state.

There have been a lot of suggestions as to how to sway the people who wish to resist your efforts. I think this is an effort in futility. You’ll never actually MAKE a person understand your expertise. Rather, you can only do your job to the best of your abilility.

Try making friends with these people instead of battling with them. Over time, when they get to know you really well, they will trust your talents even more and be less likely to resist your suggestions.

One thing most people hate is a know-it-all. You accuse these people of being know-it-alls, but I imagine they feel the same way about you. Just because I’m not a doctor doesn’t mean I can’t have opinions about the medical practice. Similarly, non-designers sometimes have suggestions that work and we have to at least hear them out.

+
Ryan Ford

Everybody thinks they’re a designer. That’s why diplomacy is needed. I don’t tell marketing people how to sell, but they think they can tell me how to design. Especially if it’s their dollar on the line.

That said, if you give the impression that you do respect their opinion and yet have a persuasive reason for presenting an alternative you’ll go far. Catch more flies with honey.

quote - Part of being an art director is being pragmatic at times, and creative at others.

Truer words have never been spoken. I just have faith in myself and tell them what I honestly think. The end result is a compromise between my vision and the marketers. Which is how it’s set up and therefore how it should be.

It takes time to win confidence, you need to be patient.

peace

I always think of this song, from “The United States of America,” 1961

Look at the colors you chose
The best you could do I suppose
A peppermint stripe with royal blue
The same as the British colors too
Now how will we tell whose side is who?
Look at the colors you chose
Why couldn’t it have been puce
Lavender over chartreuse
Or possibly some exotic shade
A delicate orange, mauve, or jade
Instead of the choice that has been made
Why couldn’t it have been possibly cinnamon
Everybody wants to be an art director
Everybody wants to call the shots
Everybody wants to be a flag dissector
Changing all my stars to polka dots
Everybody thinks that they’re the final word
On what is strictly out and what is in
Howdja like a flag that features fleur-de-lis
On ochre corrugated tin!

––Stan Freberg and Billy May

One thing most people hate is a know-it-all. You accuse these people of being know-it-alls, but I imagine they feel the same way about you. Just because I’m not a doctor doesn’t mean I can’t have opinions about the medical practice. Similarly, non-designers sometimes have suggestions that work and we have to at least hear them out.

The most compelling point I’ve read is the quoted.

You may tend to find that a lot of people have graduated with New Media and Fine Arts degrees, honors students even, who still can be horribly wrong in their design choices. Granted, they generally should have a better basis for their arguments than someone without the degree or diploma, but that still doesn’t make their ideas irrefutable. No matter what position you have at a company, you are there in a vast majority of cases to take on a share of the workload that pertains specifically to that which you had experience and/or education in the field of beforehand. On some occasions you can enter the field cluelessly and have the employer train you to a competent level, hopefully. However, it is very rare when someone is hired to be the end-all-be-all of their position. Director or not, they still need to consider the other collaborators on projects. If a client makes a stupid demand in regards to the creative direction of the project, the only things you can do is either try to explain why you feel it is a stupid suggestion, try to understand why the client feels it’s so important, keep quiet and accept it or tell the client that it’s too bad and they can look elsewhere for a service provider because you refuse to sacrifice your integrity as an artist. In the last case, you most likely should make sure that you aren’t throwing yourself out the door with the client when you make such a decision.

Nobody is always right. Perhaps you need to make sure that you don’t end up with a chip on your shoulder that prevents you from noticing when they might make a good decision that you may have missed.

The point made about research and statistics is correct as well. However I see it from a different perspective. If you want something, you can take the initiative to research and develop a concrete(as far as so is possible) argument on your own behalf. Should the other want to defend their point further, they can refute with their own research. While I’m a developer and protected by protocol from the volley of attacks between designers/AM/programmers, I can honestly say that research and statistics on a subjective argument supported only by case studies would definately incline me to produce a counterargument had it been me in that position.

As a designer, you are technically superceded by UI/IA/HI anyways. What you feel may look appealing, may not at all be appealing to actually work with. When it comes to legibility you are often going to be defeated on anything corporate or conservative.

In my experience, when something becomes a harassment to develop because of compatibility between browsers, I find the designers tend to be quite forgiving on the whole. They will give in some areas and not in others. It makes them a pleasure to work with. When all is said and done, that is the most important thing at the end of the day.

In my humble opinion at least.

I have found reverse psychology to be invaluable in this regard...

Find some competitor’s piece that’s terribly designed. Make a big deal of it to your boss, pointing out all of the awful mistakes they made: type, composition, palette, photography, etc.

Rinse and repeat.

—Michael.

———————————————————————————
// love what you do or do something else. //
Michael Ebert — graphic designer, jazz saxophonist, horror movie devotee
http://homepage.mac.com/mwebert
mwebert@mac.com
———————

I’m not sure I understand fully. If the suggestions are out of place, tell them otherwise (and if necessary show them). If the suggestions are valid, accept them, take them on board, then get over yourself - collaboration is key. You can’t change the world on your own. :)

—————
Paul Ducco
Solid Creative

“You can’t change the world on your own.”

Yeah, you can, lots of folks have.

Gerald

You need people to listen to you and follow you. This is not solitary changing; you are simply the catalyst.

+
Ryan Ford

Well yeah. Thoreau wrote, “Most men lead lives of quite desperation.” As per Paul’s little icon, FEAR.

If you work for someone else you are obligated to play by their rules, if not, you are not.

Boy, there are so many ways to approach this topic...
and so much that is useful has already been stated.

• Design justification and compromise go far beyond 2D, print and media projects. I’ve sat in with a few architects while they “wrestle” with owners and board members, and those who are “buying” the building know far less about architecture and engineering, yet it doesn’t stop them from saying what they like or dislike. (But I guess if your funding a multi-million dollar project you’re going to want to have final input.)
• The majority of projects (of any sort) that are developed by “committee” are rarely cohesive. There are generally too many personal agendas and diverse opinions to produce anything but a compromise. In other words, the solution to the “problem” was more focused on resolving group dynamics than the actual “project” at hand.
• A “Team” approach to solving problems is more productive and ultimately produces something greater than any of the members could have produced individually.
• Contemporary Western culture has a “love-hate” sense of those who are called “designers”, and they have no real place in the hierarchy of useful professions. It’s better to keep “designers” in the craftsmen/service category (because they’re skillful but know less), than to consider “designers” as being a profession (where they know more, heaven forbid).
• To only “think as a graphic designer” is to limit your own abilities and potential. If you look only with your eyes and a sense of balance and design, production and methodology, then you quite possibly will miss the entire picture. Who among us care to critique the design aesthetics of the mandala below? Not me, since my comments would be utterly useless in terms of the intended use of the piece.

Far too many corporate manager types have no regard for expertise because they have none themselves: they got their jobs because they were good at playing corporate politics, and nothing else. Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss is an extreme caricature, but one based on all-too-real people.

If your boss doesn’t respect your abilities/opinions/expertise, maybe it’s time to look for a new boss...

Yes, it’s true... there are some managers who base their “successful survival” on a closed set of formulaic approaches. To venture beyond their safe set of pat answers is to put their own arse on the line.

Hey... but what’s new?

I can definately see the past two points as being an all to uncomfortable reality for those who work in advertising firms, or any of the other fields with designers in larger firms.

However, I think it’s not so much true in those who work in web. The majority of the web-based firms ( in Toronto at least ) are not large enough for that to take place. While some might argue that in smaller firms, closeness of friends who began a project company together creates the possibility for an incoherant manager much easier than a larger firm where things are more regulated. I personally think the opposite is true. It may be possible for that to happen in the early life of such a firm, but for that firm to have any continued success it would have to rely on pure luck to get by with mismanagement dealing such massive blows.

That’s not to say that halfassed mismanaged companys haven’t ballooned into bigger companies in the past, but I think you can’t use a 1:20,000+ rationale as a legitimate argument for it.