I have a confession. I was once a style guide nazi. It was a long time ago, when standard word processing (anyone remember Wordperfect 4.2?) gave way to desktop design packages (anyone remember Aldus Pagemaker?). This liberated document design from the tyranny of pre-printed letterhead and put it in the hands of multiple personnel, each enthusiastic but also each following their own design whims. It meant that one organisation could be pumping out multiple sets of documents or collateral, none of them bearing much resemblance to the other except perhaps the random and irregular placement of a logo, somewhere. Or in some cases, everywhere.
Style guides were a way of instilling a set of disciplines into this rabble. They sought to create a consistent corporate ‘look’ that supported the organisation’s brand. (By brand, I do not mean logo. A logo is the visual symbol for an organisation. The brand is what that logo stands for. There’s a difference).
Style guides are now accepted common practice. Tacked onto style guides has been an increasing emphasis on turning every single piece of communication into a minor art form. Submissions, proposals, basic electronic communication – many organisations now invest heavily (both time and money) in creating a highly polished ‘look’ which only a graphic artist can deliver. Images can’t just be decent, they need a professional photographer. No piece of communication can leave without being subject to an increasingly high hurdle test of visual quality which is increasingly expensive and time consuming to achieve. As a result, we are less responsive, less inventive, less creative and less innovative. It’s reached the point that communication is once again subject to a tyranny of constraint which is the obsession with design appearance - at the expense of content.
My thinking has moved on because I think that the typical recipients of corporate communication have also moved on. The highly polished corporate ‘look’ has become so de rigueur that it’s rarely a distinguishing feature any more. When that happens, what distinguishes one business from another? My strong feeling is that it’s content.
Professional service firms are, by definition, in the business of selling their professionals. That means the people, their ideas, their insights, their expertise. This is what I look for when it comes to content.
Businesses that focus on highlighting this sort of content as a form of elevating awareness seem to me to enjoy a big advantage over firms who have opted for ‘vanilla’ flavoured corporate-speak delivered in highly polished formats. I would suspect many of you would opt for genuine quality content in the form of professional insights, case studies or evidence-based professional opinion – even ‘out there’ and provocative scenario thinking – over bland content however appealing its presentation. In short, you’d rather look at something interesting written on a paper napkin than something uninspiring but presented as a work of art.
Where’s this leading? I think it means that too often businesses are being sucked into a false comfort zone where design quality is some sort of substitute for content. It isn’t, and it never was.
Does this mean design no longer matters? No, there are minimum standards. But I’m increasingly of the view that people generally care less about how something looks and care more about what it says. And who is saying it. And why.
What do you think?
