Matthew T Grant

The other day I posted, “5 Rules for Creating Content that RULES!“, which I wrote with PJA’s Mike O’Toole. We were walking a fine line because we wanted to talk about ways to effectively conduct content-driven marketing but, at the same time, we said that your content strategy had to flow from your marketing strategy AND that content itself, in order to be useful and ultimately shareable, had to be created with the audience in mind.

In other words, if you want to create content that rules, actually creating content is the last thing you should do.

The underlying message is: Don’t confuse means with ends. The goal of marketing is not to pump out advertisements, for example; the goal is to market products and services and use advertising or pricing or merchandising or channel management or whatever to do that.

But there is another, more subtle message underlying the aforementioned message: For content to be of use to you, it has to seem like you created it primarily for others. That is, if your content is too obviously self-serving (by being “salesy” or overtly promotional), even if others could use it, they will probably choose not to.

If you are going to give something away (valuable information, useful tools, practical insights, etc.) in order to get something, you have to give it away without expecting anything in return. I think there is some kind of life lesson in here somewhere.

Image Courtesy of dogeared-1144.

Five long years ago, I wrote a piece entitled, “Return on Creative.” The crux of that essay was that design was critical to business success and, naturally, that a clear understanding of business principles and a focus on creating value was critical to successful design.

This was part of marketing campaign that we were running in order to position Aquent as the company that “got” both business AND design, making us the perfect choice for any organization looking for increased efficiency from creative execution (as we often called it). Of course, it also jibed with the growing (and still prevalent) trend amongst AIGA-istas and DMI-ers to insist that design deserved a “place at the table” – that is, the table where important business decisions are made.

This “place at the table” thinking has been questioned by folks like Michael Bierut and, more recently, Dan Saffer. Bierut sees it as symptomatic of an insecurity complex and insists that designers should focus on being good at design, not business. Saffer says that designers need allies at the table, but should relish their place away from it as outsiders who can “speak truth to power.” As high-falutin’ as that may sound, Saffer rightly emphasizes that, place at the table or not, designers need to be able to explain their work and decisions in business terms.

When a client or manager asks about the return on investing in “good” design, she wants to translate it into the language of profit and loss. Paying designers is an expense that she must weigh against other expenses and justify in terms of relative profitability. How do YOU handle this question? How do you measure the impact of DESIGN? Do you?

Or is that, ultimately, the wrong question?

Image Courtesy of Wessex Archaeology.

In the early days of the Web, it was not uncommon for companies to say they wanted to hire someone who knew HTML, Photoshop, JavaScript, Java, SQL, Cold Fusion, PHP, etc.

As the Web grew and people became more sophisticated, it was understood that there was a division of labor on the Web and that someone might know a lot about JavaScript without knowing anything about Java, and vice versa.

This post, which first appeared in February of 2009, addressed the fact that, sadly, there are still some people out there who think that if someone knows one Web technology, then they probably know them all.

In 2007, I interviewed Minh Nguyen who was working through Aquent’s San Diego office. He had built his own web design studio from scratch and was kind enough to share with me lessons he had learned along the way.

As part of my work with Aquent, I interviewed a number of the many talented people who work for that company. I posted these interviews as a way of spotlighting the aforementioned talent. This interview with web designer Jon Billett first appeared on February 12, 2009.

Jon Billett is a designer represented by Aquent’s Philadelphia office who has spent the last several years making the transition from print to web. Of the work he’s done that you may have seen are a set of banner ads featuring Regis and Kelly which Jon created for TD Bank.

I asked Jon a few questions about his career, the process of moving from print design to interactive design, and the key to creating effective banner ads. Here’s what he told me.

You started your career as a graphic designer, right?

Yep, my background is in print design. It’s what I studied in school and it’s what gave me my foundation in layout, aesthetics, and making things look pretty.

So how did you build your interactive chops?

After I graduated, I basically taught myself at first and then networked with as many people as I could to learn from them. I made an online Flash portfolio and was fortunate enough to land a job through Craigslist with 3601, the internal ad agency at the Wachovia Center here in Philly.

What sort of stuff did you do with 3601??

This was back in 2006 and they really hadn’t done too much Flash or web stuff themselves, so they hired me to create banner ads, put together the web site for the agency, and things like that. I also worked on the design of the iWalls that they have installed there. These huge displays allow fans to interact with hi-def timelines dedicated to the Flyers and the Sixers. It’s really great to see people on TV playing with them, and being a fan myself, I had a lot of fun creating them.

Was it challenging to be “the web guy” on the team?

In a way. I was the only person who knew how to do this stuff, so when I had problems, there wasn’t anyone in the office that I could turn to. I had to reach out and find other sources to get answers.

What sources did you find?

I got a lot of help from TechnicalLead.com, which also runs LearnFlash.com. I joined as a member so I could have access to their tutorial videos but the best part of the service was access to mentors – experts who have really mastered this technology. Having a specific person you can tap for help is ideal, though you really need to be at a certain level to make the most of mentoring.

I realize that banner ads are just part of what you’ve done, but what would you say is the key to a successful banner ad design?

A banner ad can’t be distracting, but it still has to attract attention and be intriguing. You have to put enough in the ad to pique someone’s curiosity and get them to click without making it too busy (and not just because you want to keep the file sizes down). Aside from making the ads entertaining and engaging, I like using the format to throw in new animation tricks I’ve learned.

Last question. Who are your influences?

On the print side, I would say that my biggest influences have been Saul Bass, David Carson, with his “type as image” stuff, and street/urban things like Shephard Fairey. On the web front, I absolutely love the work being done by AYC Media.

Learn from the mystics is my only advice. – Roxy Music [misheard]

A friend suggested that I write a review of the Opeth show I attended on Saturday, May 2, 2009. I find myself quite incapable of doing so because, frankly, I cannot judge their music objectively or provide an accurate recounting of their performance.

This inability stems from the fact that my experience of Opeth was not primarily aesthetic in nature. Rather, as has been the case with the best metal shows I have attended, my experience in the presence of these masters of the art tended more towards the mystical/ecstatic realms of human consciousness.

Indeed, my most immediate memory of the show finds me in a state of frenetic, possessed movement accompanied by an ego-annihilating oceanic feeling. I give Opeth credit for inducing this state, a thing they accomplished via a sometimes subtly, sometimes savagely evolving rhythmic intensity coupled with serpentine melodies, strange words, and the trance-inducing repetition of droney, modal patterns.

Through its deliberate and complex structures – not to mention the aggressive amplification of sound and hypnotic manipulation of light – Opeth’s music invited the listener to become lost in its labyrinth.

However, it was not an all-devouring minotaur that awaited it us at the center of these intricate and winding passages. It was, instead, a refreshing, liberating, and, dare I say, “communal,” transcendence.

For all who seek the fortuitous and often unexpected profane illumination sometimes afforded by the marriage of technology and spirit in this post-everything age, I recommend that you seek out Opeth and especially the public display of their conjurings.

Image Courtesy of deep_schismic.