We’ve all been in that same situation before. “Could you make that logo just a little bit bigger?” “I’m not sure about those colors.” “We need more punch.” “Add a starburst.”
Were those elements really necessary? Problaby not. But should we do them?
I’ve seen/heard many arguments from designers that say no, design integrity should be upheld. For my own pleasure, I’m going to attempt to play the devil’s advocate and argue otherwise.
I guess you could say high school still rubs off on me and every now and then I’ll remember something that I learned from one of my classes. In this case it comes from my political science class regarding views on political representation. There are two basic schools of thought when it comes to how government representatives view how they should answer the many questions they face in office:
The Caretaker Approach
This view believes that the official must be a good caretaker to their constituents even if it means disagreeing with them at times. For a designer this view is more ideal. We must be a good caretaker of the clients brand even if it means telling them no. But do we really know what’s best for them?
The Democratic Approach
This view is more swayed by popular opinion. “The people know what’s best for there lives. It’s my job to give it to them.” The clients views are #1. Disregard your design sense. Just give them what they want. In reality though, clients know (or at least should know) more about their business and their target market than you do. While making that logo bigger might make zero sense from your view, there possibly could be some increase in the bottom line because of it.
Please Handle with Care
Obviously there has to be a happy medium between these two viewpoints. All I ask is that you take a second before saying no to a design change. Are you really increasing the clients bottom line?