Take the case of the strapline:

It’s a cool and composed challenge. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really say anything to you.

But what if you put a powerful symbol just above it. Read the rest of this entry…

As I’ve said in my previous controversial blog post, Team Manila  has made itself known as the design company that makes nationalistic shirts that sell like fishballs.

Then followed a plethora of nationalistic shirts that went viral crazy. You’ve seen hundreds of Multiply stores with national shirts. You’ve seen Collezione’s My Pilipinas shirts with the printed Philippine map ala Lacoste. And today, I saw a friend of mine, Mark Gosingtian, do a Philippine statement shirt in response to the disaster that struck our country.

As I am writing this message, the shirt has recorded 1621 notes. That’s a huge, huge number considering how relatively small the Filipino blogging community is. (In the mean time, check out his blog and order a shirt! )

The Collezione My Pilipinas Shirt

Mark's Hero Shirt. From top to bottom: Saab Magalona, Tricia Gosingtian, Mark Gosingtian

But the question I want to pose today is not a question of morality but that of productivity. Are these shirt campaigns going somewhere or are they all in vain?

Tell it with some T-shirts

We don’t need to be rocket scientists to know that we want to say something when we wear something.

There are of course, subconscious factors affecting the way we clothe ourselves, and I will not talk about these because I’m not an expert in that field. But what I want to talk about is the obvious. I want to point out the conscious and deliberate part of clothing.

Church people have Jesus dangling all over their bodies. Whores have their nipples almost slipping out of their shirts. Environmentalists will try their best to have trees, panda bears and the recycle symbol printed on their shirts. Rockstars will have a skull, guitar and some demons somewhere hidden.

The Obvious Message

These nationalistic shirts are living testimonies that we have a nation hungry for a Philippine brand. We have millions waiting for a flaming horseshoe that will burn the words, “Pinoy ako,” to their bare butts.

We don’t want to belong to a group of random people living together and screwing each other. We want a nation and we want to be damn proud of it.

The Problem

I had a crush on a blockmate before. She had a very nice body, dressed herself extremely well with noticeable signature clothing and looked like a princess. When I approached her, all of it changed. If you’re thinking she had a rotten attitude, that’s not it. My problem was that she had a rotten smell. (Mmm. I can still remember the odour…)

The shirts are good as they’re hot and reaching thousands, but at the same time, they’re only making us look good without fixing what’s inside. Although we’re gaining a sense of nationalism from them, to what end does this nationalism lead to when our very core as a nation is ambiguous?

What use is nationalism when we don’t have a nation?

The Challenge

Shirts and other nationalistic movements have been successful in creating a desire to have a nation. They’ve been extremely successful in increasing awareness that we, as a country, have to have our own brand. That’s a good thing.

But first, we have to take a step back and look deep into our nation and ask, “What does it truly mean to be a Filipino? What will make us proud to be Filipinos? What do we want to be known for in the global community?”

Then take a step ahead and challenge ourselves, ‘How do we translate the desire these T-shirts have created to real, productive action?”

You’ve probably been loitering around facebook and probably stumbled upon this disturbing image:

Thanks a lot Manny!

As many you guys have said, while so many people are suffering from Ondoy, Villar had the right mind to proclaim himself a savior of the typhoon victims by shamelessly plastering his name over a styro meal.

Some argue that it could’ve been an enemy of Villar who did this—and I believe that’s possible. But what’s really, really interesting is that people are choosing to believe that he did it.

Why? Read the rest of this entry…

photo by ko_knia on Flicr

When we were young, salivating and bed-wetting toddlers, none of us told ourselves, “I want to design.” We all started with drawing—using crayons, colored pencils, paint brushes and ballpens.

Fast forward a few decades later when you’re suddenly out of the drawing world and into graphic design, do you still draw? Do you still even need it?

Manda at Creative Opera posted about an article about how designers still need to draw. She points out that it makes you a better communicator, allow you to offer more to your client, save you money and it’ll make you a better designer. If you’re a designer and you can’t draw, you really gotta learn the skill. Or do you?

While I agree that the basic principles of illustrating are necessary, illustrating itself is not.

Learning the theories on light, perspective, lines, color, shapes and so on are useful because many of these principles are transferrable to design. However, learning the principles behind illustration is a totally different beast from illustrating itself.

In order to be an illustrator, you need to invest countless hours of time and money into turning yourself from ordinary to great. It doesn’t happen with just talent. Like any other skill, it needs to be honed and perfected. Like any other profession, these guys need to be rewarded and paid what they deserve.

So what should designers do? Read the rest of this entry…

Illustration by ThaZumi

I read this post by Eric Karjaluoto with an interview with Blair Enns of winwithoutpitching.com. In reference to design firms screwing things up with their sales strategies, he mentions the following:

The only real way for a firm to shift the power (from client to firm) is to eliminate as many substitutes to hiring their firm as possible. They do this by building a deep expertise. The easiest way to build deep expertise is to narrow the focus of the firm. But this is where the conflict starts. Creative people, by their very nature, have broad interests and tend to resist focus.

The typical designer will want to offer everything to everyone because of their “limitless creativity,” fear of missing opportunities or simply because of the fact that everyone else is doing it—including all the big players in the industry.

What’s misunderstood is that these big players came during a time when there never was an industry. They arrived in a vacuum (or a minimally competitive market) which is the reason they’re able to play the field like they’re doing now. Newer ones don’t have that luxury.

Young and new designers have to learn to focus. When they focus, they establish themselves as the gurus in that field. They go to places where they become unreachable. Barriers to entry begin to shoot up and competition won’t be able to casually copy like they do.

Suddenly, there is no (direct) competition because the bar in the playing field has been raised. They’re no longer competing in the design rat race.

From a consumer product standpoint, look at companies like Wacom, the leader of pen tablets. Microsoft, Genius, Logitech and others have the capability to produce tablets and compete in the field; but people still buy from them because of their expertise in making pen tablets. Because of their focus on their few products, they are able to perfect it and make it the best that the industry can offer. They’re irreplaceable and unstoppable.

From an artist’s standpoint, check out Pablo Picasso. Although he was creative enough to be able to do so many forms of painting and illustrating, he persistently mastered his craft in Cubism, which eventually made him a legend.

As designers, what do we really want to focus on? Brands Identity? Layouts? Environments? Publications? Illustration? Motion Graphics? Packaging? Print and Production Finishing? Web Design? Typography & Lettering? Design Thinking?

Pick or die.

Here are some good examples of design firms who focus:

Matchstic—Brand Identity house
Motionographer—Motion Graphics Specialist
Hoefler & Frere Jones—Typography Masters

On the other side, I don’t have to enumerate bad examples because there are just too much to list down. Google up, “multimedia design firm,” or “all your design needs,” and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Disclaimer: As Seth Godin says, the ideal is to capture the widest market as possible. However, starting out, that’s pretty much impossible as all the big players will eat you up. So the solution here is to focus and saturate your relatively small niche market with your expertise until it reaches the point of explosion where expanding is the only way to go. Milton Glaser, Sagmeister Inc, Neville Brody and all the other greats have reached this point.

A Site called "All Free Logos."

If you’re a designer, you very well know how difficult it is competing with Photoshoppers offering their services so cheap that they’re almost free.

Yesterday, I read a post by Malcolm Gladwell arguing with some ideas Chris Anderson pointed out in his new book, Free. Basically, Chris is telling us that information wants to be free. Newspapers and other sources of information that used to work are quickly dying because faster technological mediums like the internet are becoming cheaper(or free) and more convenient. “The digital age is exerting an inexorable downward pressure on the prices of all things “made of ideas.”

He goes on pointing out that “Musicians who believe that their music is being pirated…should stop complaining, and capitalize on the added exposure that piracy provides by making money through touring, merchandise sales, and “yes, the sale of some of [their] music to people who still want CDs or prefer to buy their music online.”

Malcolm counter-argues; however, that Free is not the way to go. He gives a detailed and compelling case explaining how Youtube has been finding extreme difficulty in sustaining itself and making money because of the Free business model. He tells us about how iPhone apps (ideas), which aren’t free, are outselling the actual units of Iphones (stuff) themselves. He tells the story of Myozyme, a drug that cost 500 million dollars to develop, and how it sells for $300,000 a year, which is far from free. Simply put, he’s saying that information and ideas aren’t supposed to be free and that iron laws dictating that these things should be are all compromised by the digital technology that we all have access to. (If you want to read more, also check out Seth Godin’s reaction.)

***

We’re living in exponential and transitional times where things are quickly changing. Both arguments by Chris Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell are right. There are industries where free will effectively work and change the way business is done; but there will be some where it will sound absolutely absurd.

Too bad for designers, we’re in an industry where free is quickly taking over the place. Read the rest of this entry…