Monopolies are indeed hard to fight against or choose an alternative.
But when there are alternatives, people can make a difference by choose what's better. However, many times what's better, easier, sustainable, etc costs more so one ends up choosing the monopoly...
Most consumers want to pay as little as possible which leads to the preference for low-quality products (explained by Gloria Origgi as 'kakonomics').
Sadly, often, the people paying for design aren't the ones using it. I'm working as a PD in enterprise software. Trust me, the business is totally separate from the product. And I'm not talking about usability—it's even decoupled from features. CTOs look at prices and SLAs. If those are good, then the product is good. It often isn't, but the people that have to use our products are not the decision makers. Otherwise we'd be out of business by now. It's a sad reality but that's what stakeholder capitalism gives you - a subpar human experience.
Can't wait for your book to be published! Thank you for working on this topic.
I personally find working as a designer exhausting specifically because bad design does indeed make money.
One of the reasons Product Designers (me) in tech make more money is because we understand that business goals come first as long as those goals don't harm users (people).
I studied fine art in college (painting) and I've always understood this aspect of design, which is why I don't struggle with it as much as my colleagues who had a formal design education.
Hi Eva. Thanks for your comment. We've definitely found that people who went to formal design school and those that didn't often enter the profession with very different expectations.
I'm curious about how you transitioned from painting to product design? If you've written about this somewhere please share a link.
I'll have to write about it. I've been postponing it, but this seems like an excellent opportunity to get to it! I'll post a link here once I've written about the transition. Thanks again.
Very well stated. I was once caught on the horns of this dilemma (the design for sale vs design for use dilemma) when we sold a controlling stake in our company to private equity. As head of product, I believed our first goal should be to improved the product (design for use) and I did not fully comprehend that this didn’t align with the PE interests in expanding sales and marketing. Had I couched my advocacy in terms of the dynamic you describe, I might have been more successful.
Thanks for sharing that story Tom. I think there's almost always some amount of overlap, in that you can sometimes improve both simultaneously and without raising costs that much (e.g. a better product is usually easier to market), but to invest in those areas first requires agreement which can be hard to get.
The book Good to Great Jim Collins, 2001) is where I first saw data about the benefits of design. The UK Design council also put out a report in 2007 that showed similar data. It applies across all business models and is incredibly useful. I'm agreeing with you emphatically, and I think this data makes your case even stronger. We don't need to capitulate or compromise, we need to present the value of our work in a way that resonates with our audience. That is the work that Collins and the UK Design Council are trying to do.
I guess I'd ask the question; If not with profit, in a capitalist society, how else are we going to create a world where businesses value design?
I agree with you, but it’s worth noting that there are also many studies that show design makes businesses more profitable. Money is still the only motivation and companies that aren’t employing (or valuing) designers are leaving it on the table.
Monopolies are indeed hard to fight against or choose an alternative.
But when there are alternatives, people can make a difference by choose what's better. However, many times what's better, easier, sustainable, etc costs more so one ends up choosing the monopoly...
Most consumers want to pay as little as possible which leads to the preference for low-quality products (explained by Gloria Origgi as 'kakonomics').
Sadly, often, the people paying for design aren't the ones using it. I'm working as a PD in enterprise software. Trust me, the business is totally separate from the product. And I'm not talking about usability—it's even decoupled from features. CTOs look at prices and SLAs. If those are good, then the product is good. It often isn't, but the people that have to use our products are not the decision makers. Otherwise we'd be out of business by now. It's a sad reality but that's what stakeholder capitalism gives you - a subpar human experience.
I do certainly understand how you feel. What do you think is the alternative?
Can't wait for your book to be published! Thank you for working on this topic.
I personally find working as a designer exhausting specifically because bad design does indeed make money.
One of the reasons Product Designers (me) in tech make more money is because we understand that business goals come first as long as those goals don't harm users (people).
I studied fine art in college (painting) and I've always understood this aspect of design, which is why I don't struggle with it as much as my colleagues who had a formal design education.
Hi Eva. Thanks for your comment. We've definitely found that people who went to formal design school and those that didn't often enter the profession with very different expectations.
I'm curious about how you transitioned from painting to product design? If you've written about this somewhere please share a link.
Thank you, Scott.
I'll have to write about it. I've been postponing it, but this seems like an excellent opportunity to get to it! I'll post a link here once I've written about the transition. Thanks again.
Hi Scott, I published a post on how I transitioned from painting to product design. Thanks for the nudge!
https://open.substack.com/pub/evapetersen/p/new-is-nice-always?r=ud8i1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Very well stated. I was once caught on the horns of this dilemma (the design for sale vs design for use dilemma) when we sold a controlling stake in our company to private equity. As head of product, I believed our first goal should be to improved the product (design for use) and I did not fully comprehend that this didn’t align with the PE interests in expanding sales and marketing. Had I couched my advocacy in terms of the dynamic you describe, I might have been more successful.
Thanks for sharing that story Tom. I think there's almost always some amount of overlap, in that you can sometimes improve both simultaneously and without raising costs that much (e.g. a better product is usually easier to market), but to invest in those areas first requires agreement which can be hard to get.
The book Good to Great Jim Collins, 2001) is where I first saw data about the benefits of design. The UK Design council also put out a report in 2007 that showed similar data. It applies across all business models and is incredibly useful. I'm agreeing with you emphatically, and I think this data makes your case even stronger. We don't need to capitulate or compromise, we need to present the value of our work in a way that resonates with our audience. That is the work that Collins and the UK Design Council are trying to do.
I guess I'd ask the question; If not with profit, in a capitalist society, how else are we going to create a world where businesses value design?
I agree with you, but it’s worth noting that there are also many studies that show design makes businesses more profitable. Money is still the only motivation and companies that aren’t employing (or valuing) designers are leaving it on the table.
I did note something similiar here:
> Of course good design is often good business,
> and there are exceptions to the above list, but it’s not
> as common as we’re led to believe.
Is there a specific study you've seen that looked at how this holds up across business model? I've seen ones like this one (https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/mckinsey-design/our-insights/the-business-value-of-design) that are organized by industry, which might not be a useful.