A few days ago I had a conversation with a client about the state of his communications. I was arguing for a certain visual language: a little glossier, a little colder, a little more overtly monied. By that I mean that I was arguing for a design that actually looked designed. I know this flies in opposition to the current fashion of invisible design, but it seemed like the market we were playing in required a little slickness. The client makes high-end luxury stuff, stuff that I felt needed a designed presence.
But when I told him (again) that we should rethink the graphic presentation of his site, he kinda went off. “You’re wrong!” he said. “You’re standards are just too high!” Now, that may be true. I care a whole lot about what things look like. But then he went on to illustrate how the site has been functioning quite well to generate leads for his business. It was all true. His logic was sound. He was, in fact, getting tons of interest from this ugly-ass site.
Which begs this scary question: if design is meant to incite action, does it really matter if it’s pretty?
Comments
4 Comments so far. Leave a comment below.It matters to people who care about aesthetics. It doesn’t matter to people who don’t. If we measure everything by commerce alone, we will be left with a pretty dismal world. On the other hand, resources including time are always constrained and it’s logical to consider the best use of those resources.
Pretty matters. Nuff said. You want it to be pretty. Your mother wants it to be pretty cuz she raised you right. The world NEEDS pretty. And you know what? PRETTY SELLS.
If something functions well, is easy to use, and performs gracefully, it will have an intrinsic beauty all of its own, more important than the glossy outer shell.
…but when a site has a glossy outer shell, we are more inclined to *believe* it functions well and that it has an aura of trust worthiness. We are willing to believe it’s good, if it looks attractive.
A company’s first foot forward can be both functionally effective (and perhaps “invisible” in one sense), AND aesthetically interesting, unique and memorable in terms of leaving a favorable (hopefully lasting) visual and mental impression. However you must be just as intentional about both—not play one as more or less critical.
Developing a brand is a unique challenge, but what requires even more fitness is getting them managed correctly out of the gate, then maintaining them. To continue to be interesting, innovative and inspiring. Basically, relevant. So if said client feels function is the engine, managing and maintaining the aesthetic components may be too much of an uphill battle.
I find joy from my work, and in the percentage of instances where a client trusts my intuition and track record. But so often, clients are so often their own biggest enemy.