The following column examines and critiques commercial design, as well as provides commentary on current issues and trends in the design industry.

In his latest book, Design Form and Chaos, author Paul Rand criticizes marketing professionals for their lack of understanding of graphic design, claiming that they tend to get in the way of the power of imagination and creativity.

In the world of package design, where a knowledge of marketing objectives is critical to the creation of effective consumer communications, savvy marketers lack no such understanding. They know that good design can be a powerful agent in the building of successful brands. But when it comes to putting good design on the shelf, they often lack the intestinal fortitude to trust their own instincts, preferring instead to let the consumer judge design effectiveness before releasing the product into the market.

Very often, strategies are formulated, positioning statements are developed and packages are designed before research into their effectiveness is undertaken. Only at the end of this process are consumers brought in to evaluate whether or not the design is working.

Unfortunately, this is like writing the final exams before you study, and it explains why a lot of imaginative and innovative design dies an unnatural death before hitting the shelf. Evaluative research is conducted after all the assumptions about how the consumer will respond have already been made. What should happen is that the assumptions are tested before the strategies, positions and designs are developed.

We learned how effective this inversion of the usual process can be in a recent project for the creation of a new confectionery product. Although the project began with an assumed position, we began by studying the culture of the target group in depth, looking at what they read, what they wear, what colours they respond to, what music they listen to, what they watch and how they entertain themselves.

A wide range of names and packages were developed as stimuli to determine what kinds of visual properties belonged to the target group’s cultural language. The consumer was then brought in to respond to these stimuli before we went ahead with any further development.

In our dialogue with the consumer, the knowledge gained served as the basis for brand development, making it unnecessary to undertake any kind of evaluative research after the design was done. Thus, the consumers were invited in at the stage when their expertise was truly valuable: the beginning. They brought us into their world and allowed the brand to respond to them instead of being asked to respond to something that was developed in the antiseptic world of the board room

Helmut Maucher, head of Nestlž worldwide, has said that it is impossible to see the world from your desk. Yet, this is precisely what we try to do when developing brands. Under conditions like this, it should come as no surprise that eight out of 10 new brands fail in the marketplace.

Getting out into the world before brands are developed is essential to successful branding. Some researchers have made this an ongoing part of their practice. Davis Masten of the research firm Cheskin and Masten in San Francisco tells us how they keep in touch with reality: ‘We give thousands of people cameras and way more film than they will need and encourage them to take pictures of their cupboards and shelves. They not only come back to us with pictures of the products in their kitchens and bathrooms, but also of the insides of their closets, the colour of their walls and furniture, and the places where they work, play and party. What we get is a comprehensive catalogue of their everyday behaviour.’

Masten’s firm then looks for the patterns that tell them what these people aren’t aware of in their own behaviour – thus revealing a rich database of stimuli for designers to work with in the development of brands.

Working this way does involve a leap of faith, and a brand manager who is willing to defend the brand’s position against a pusillanimous bureaucracy. Some may balk at this by asserting that it amounts to nothing more than an irresponsible gamble with precious company resources. But armed with the knowledge gained from research done up front, the odds can be favourably stacked against failure.

In any case, aren’t we asking consumers to make a leap of faith every time they buy a product? Aren’t we asking them to gamble with their resources every time they approach the shelf ? By bringing them in at the beginning, we not only diminish our own risks, but theirs too.

Will Novosedlik and Bob Russell are principals of Russell Design in Toronto.