A brand like Patagonia...

Patagonia are a California based outdoor equipment manufacturer. On the surface of it, a not hugely exciting or world changing proposition. Wrong, this company is as progressive as they come. It's founding member Yvon Chouinard could be considered an environmental entrepreneur. He established his company to 'use business to inspire solutions to the environmental crisis.' He found his passion in climbing when he was a young man. It was Chouinard's chrome-molybdenum steel pitons that first gave him the taste for environmental business. He sold them to other climbers out the back of his car to fund his prolonged climbing adventures. He established Patagonia in 1965 and by 1970 they were the largest supplier of climbing hardware in the U.S. Today they produce climbing gear and clothing along with surfing and general outdoor equipment. All items are born out of the principle of creating items that cause 'least harm to the environment'. He describes it as 'clean' equipment. Clean in terms of the design and manufacture process and the way that the items interact in the environment.

So being as Yvon Chouinard and Patagonia are one of my heroes of business, I want to asses whether or not I feel that they communicate what they are about effectively. Words and phrases on their website like clean, environmental activist, real difference, freedom, respect, support, bare footed, organic, slow growing, risk, soul, reflection, functional and friends all bring resonance to their brand values. Overall I would surmise that they are a progressive company who are about commitment to the wild world. Commitment to wild spaces and people in equal measure. They underline these values in their company tag line, "committed to the core". Because they are committed to the wild world they strive to protect it so it may be enjoyed by future generations. So do they walk their talk? To evaluate this effectively we need ask only one question. Is every aspect of the company inspired by and true to their core values? As a checklist we look to three key areas:

Product - Is what you sell a true product of your core set of values?

Operations - Is the way that you run your business truly reflective of your core values?

Communications - Are you communicating your core values effectively to others?

Product and Operations: This is best summed up by Patagonia (obviously!) in their 'Environmentalism: What we do', section of their website

"Our definition of quality includes a mandate for building products and working with processes that cause the least harm to the environment. We evaluate raw materials, invest in innovative technologies, rigorously police our waste and use a portion of our sales to support groups working to make a real difference. We acknowledge that the wild world we love best is disappearing. That is why those of us who work here share a strong commitment to protecting undomesticated lands and waters. We believe in using business to inspire solutions to the environmental crisis"

So if we assume that this statement is true, and I don't see anything to suspect the contrary, their product and processes truly reflect their values of commitment. Commitment, on their own part, to the cause of protecting the wild planet. Also a commitment to spreading the word of environmentalism to others. You buy a Patagonia product and you truly buy into a way of life and a mental attitude as well as a bloomin great rucksack.

So in my opinion, does Patagonia effectively communicate their commitment to wild spaces? They definitely do, by what they say; They admit they are not yet perfect (100% sustainable) in their product and manufacturing processes, but express a deep commitment to improving them. They are committed to the people that work for them by offering liberal amounts of compassion and inspiration. They are committed to the cause of effecting change through business and so have a raison d'etre.

Do their values translate visually? Their human and environmental policies shine out like a lighthouse. Active wear made by a committed company for similarly committed individuals out there in wild spaces doing what they love. The website is illustrated with images of people doing extreme activities. They have ambassadors for their products, hardcore individuals who have gone above and beyond the barriers that would have had us lesser mortals running for cover. They are images that show people with a level of commitment necessary to achieve great things.

Patagonia through its verbal and visual communications sets itself up as a 'committed leader' which in turn inspires dedicated followers. This is in contrast to a company like Timberland who have adopted the role of 'guardian' - We take care of it, so you don't have to. When you buy a Timberland product you do so to support their responsible processes, it's a more one way relationship. A brand like Nike on the other hand has adopted the role of the 'motivator', they give strength to their followers to be the best they can be.

The Brand Mark:
Does the Patagonia logo simply and confidently communicate their commitment to the wild world? The brand's namesake Patagonia, has many truly wild spaces. It is also under threat from a lot of environmental concerns that echo the woes of our planet. In the logo we see a foreboding set of black mountains that do speak of wild spaces and the risk one takes when venturing into them. But that sky, that dawn, it is inviting and exciting. It has a true optimism about it, just like the company. It talks about the commitment to creating a brighter tomorrow. in its styling it is reminiscent of South American textile design, so giving it a back to nature authentic feel.

The font chosen for the Patagonia brand name is classic but a little left field. It looks in congruent with the mountain silhouette behind it. The mountains themselves are badly drawn with a thick heavy key line that forgets the dawn of more enlightened brushes in Illustrator. You might say that the logo itself could do with a refresh, a bit of love and respect paid to it. You could also argue that it's slightly clunky appearance is representative of the raw aspects of nature and a slightly devil may care attitude, setting it apart from the multitude of slick big corporate logos. Overall I would conclude that Patagonia fulfils its aim of inspiring people though action and effectively communicates their commitment to wild spaces. I would say though, that some of the styling in the logo is a bit tired and could do with just a bit of attention to gently coax it into the 21st century and the brighter - with Patagonia's and its followers' help - future beyond.

Which design company?

A quick UK only google of design companies reveals a selection of 71,800,000 entries. Granted some of these are directories and other related sites and the like but an awful lot are companies. If I narrow my search to brand design companies the list gets slightly shorter but is still 309,000. So I ask myself, what makes one design company distinct from another? If, as a trade we are selling brands, it makes sense that we too should have strong unique selling points and stand out from the crowd.

Could it be that we are all a little bit worried about placing our stake too firmly in the ground. Design is a chamelon art, ever changing to suit the specific needs of our clients and in turn their customers. Few design companies talk about what is important to them, they pedal their clients work and talk about creativity and strategic thinking but fail to articulate what they see as the role of design, what it means to them and how they make it work. These core values are the things that make one company different to the next.

There are a good proprtion of companies that offer indistinct products. This could be a combination of not really understanding there own values or by desparately not wanting to put anyone off and so being all things to all people. This comes across as confusing at best and bland at worst. These companies are a bit like a badly designed 'own brand' option, and as such will always compete on price.

When we consider the better design companies, the ones that have a strong brand. I would say that they fall into 4 camps.

The first being the 'look at me' agencies those that believe that the world revolves around design and more specifically their company. They talk a lot about the glittering design awards they have won. If you are in it for the money, this is your agency. They only represent a small proportion, perhaps 10%. They come across as being arrogant in thier approach and promise 'big returns on your investment' for them it is all about the money.

The second are the 'Big safe pair of hands'. They believe in strong partnerships, working closely with their clients to produce design that is socially acceptable. To them design is a way to gain respect, love and popularity. They appeal to the majority of people, especially a lot of the big multi nationals.

The Third are 'simply fabulous darling' their exuberance for design gushes forth in bucket loads. They love design and are most anxious to produce stunning work that other designers will love too. They want to set themselves apart from others.These companies are the next biggest proportion of design companies. For them if it is beautiful it is successful. Like the 'look at me' types they like awards but for different reasons. For these companies, challenging the norm is key, and there designs will often fly against convention.

The Fourth is a rarer brand of design company the 'what ifs'. The most strategic of all the design agencies; Big on intellect, not in the least bit ideallistic. They are pragmatic in their approach but still challenge convention. They use a lot of genuine (not just for the waffle) strategic thinking and intellect to solve design problems. The brief is the best measure of a design solution's effectiveness. That and those that buy it.

To my mind, if design is about pleasing people, you need a big safe pair of hands. If it's all about the profit margins, head for the 'look and me's. If you want to be the cool kid at school you need to be 'simply fabulous darling'. If you are prepared to keep the ego out of it and want effective design based on intellect, you should ask... 'what if'

Montana Wines

Montana are the goliath of New Zealand wines. They are the country's biggest producer and exporter. As I am currently in New Zealand and drinking a fair bit of the stuff, (well it would be rude and uncultural not to). I was wondering if the design on their bottles and other public literature matches the values I can surmise from their website. If we take a look at the site we see that there is a strong natural theme in the imagery used. On there front page they state their mission "we work hard to deftly coax out all the nuances that nature offers us, so that the truly vibrant taste of Montana wines can shine through".The power of nature plus the craft of the wine maker equals great wine... sounds simple but is very powerful. This to some degree is suggested on the website but it would seem in a rather superficial way. The shots of the vines are somewhat generic, how exactly do you "coax out nuances of nature" and what are they? We learn more when the different branded varieties are described. "The cool, sunny climate, rugged topography and geologically young soils combine to produce some of the world’s most distinctive wine" Still the explanations are vague and do not bring the relationship of winemaker and nature to life. And if we weren't sure about the quality of the wine there is good lengthy description of the production methods, full of tradition and care. A good proportion of the site is given over to the promotion of New Zealand and it's attraction to the tourist. So mixed messages coming from the site. How do the bottles measure up to that core statement.



The logo is somewhat monolithic in its execution. The mountains pictured are foreboding rather than inviting. They say little of the nuances of nature that produce the vibrant wine inside. Come to that there is little to communicate the vibrancy of the product inside. I would judge that this wine was dependable and of good quality but vibrant? I don't think so.


In short I think that Montana is suffering somewhat of an identity crisis. The mantle of being NZ's biggest wine, seems to weigh heavy on its shoulders. There is not enough vibrancy inspired through nature and it looks like the craftsman has been replaced by a big shiny metal machine.



To further confuse the matter their new series of premium quality wines move further away from the nature and craft message. The idea behind this range is simple and powerful. The wines are reflective of the area they come from, representative of the different natural elements that their geography provides. They are crafted by artisans.The letters on this series although visually striking communicate little of this. I like their simplicity and the idea of a simple logo that represents the different areas but couldn't that work harder?







These coffees by Robert Harris sucessfully communicate that they are created by craftsmen inspired by and in tune with nature. And to boot they have a strong New Zealand identity and a vibrant appeal.

Chasing design awards

I was recently asked by another designer what design awards I had received for my work. I told him that I had just one from the DBA. Part of me of course wished I could wow him with my long list of accolades. I think it is natural that everyone wants to be rewarded for their efforts, to be told they did a good job and to be held in high regard by their peers, but is a design award the best way to do it? When most awards are given, they are not furnished with a brief, don't congratulate the marketeer or even the product that goes with it, just the design. Aesthetics and originality should of course be key objectives of a designer but they should almost be taken for granted when being considered for a design award. Does the design effectively communicate what is at the heart of the brand that it is promoting? That should be the first question. An award should be given to the whole package, of which design is a part of rather than being judged as a complete article. In that way we might just stop a little bit of the egoism that goes with design and concentrate on getting back to doing what we should be. That is working with companies to succesfully communicate their brand.

Designing for your personality type.

I have just completed David Keirsey’s personality test and found out that I am an ENFP or a champion Idealist, as less than 1% of the population I feel quite special! It describes me as an unrelenting idealist who looks for the good in all and who is most comfortable dealing in abstract concepts. It also says that I have "outstanding intuitive powers and can tell what is going on inside of others, reading hidden emotions and giving special significance to words or actions" all qualities that help me with design. It also says I am... "Fiercely individualistic, Champions strive toward a kind of personal authenticity" Although this too has helped me with my career it has also lead me to become disillusioned about design projects in the past.

This has occured most frequently whilst working with large global manufacturers (although some smaller companies too). The brand and marketing managers involved are often operating in a hostile atmosphere where stress and fear seem to reign supreme. They are fraught in their job, and fairly often have not been enpowered to make even small decisions so exasperating their insecurity. This atmosphere makes it impossible to be authentic because they have little idea of what they are being true to.

These situations often lead to poor quality of brief and in turn unispiring, mostly ineffective designs. There is also a huge lack of trust. Brand managers are not allowed to take ownership of their projects and are acting as a mouthpiece to distinctly absent management who in turn are responding to the needs of their shareholders. The disillusionment on my part arose from a feeling that I was not trusted as the expert in design that I was being paid to be! Trust is the key word here, an atmosphere of fear and mistrust is in turn naturally passed onto the design company trying against all odds to make some kind of sense of a confused brief.

As well as studying my own personality type description I spent time looking at the others. Covering the full spectrum of society these are the people that my designs have to communicate to. There are four distinctly different personality types with more specific descriptions within those four. The majority of the popualtion makes up two of these types, but even so there are obviously differences within them. People are complex creatures also and although these types of personality profiles are insightful, they are not all encompassing. There are those that cross types and when it comes to the products we buy it doesn't just depend on our guiding values but also on our current whim. With this in mind it seems difficult to try and create a design that appeals to different people. I wonder why then, so many of the brands that I have worked on try so desparately to be all things to all people. The logic is, sell to more people and you make more money. These brands often appear confused, projecting mixed messages. Even worse they are the bland brands, those that look like everything else. They often fall into price wars and 'me too' new product development. If they were at a party you might think they were either trying too hard or even worse you wouldn't realise they were there at all.

In contrast those brands that have metaphorically taken the personality test and so have insight into what they are about have a strong sense of self. They are the easiest and most inspiring to work on for me and the clients involved.

Why OddOneOut?

This should have been my first blog I guess, but seeing as this is a recent revision of the blog title I am now only just explaining myself. Enough of the excuses for my topsy turvy blog it after all by nature a non linear story! OddOneOut is the name of the design company that I am creating, my design company. All that I have learnt up until now will go into this blog and my company. There will also be some new stuff too of course and these posts will be a reflection of both. As business is all about people the things I am talking about are equally applicable to individuals, charitable organisations, governments and socities. I am obviously most interested in business because just like everyone I need to earn a living.

At the centre of every 'good' business there are a core of guiding principles or values. There is another ingredient that brings these values to life and that is passion. Passion equals enthusiasm and energy. It motivates people into action and it is what you call upon when things get tough. I want to work with people that are passionate about what they do. Businesses that place the value of people at their core. Those that believe that it is not only money that makes the world go round but people and the 4 elementary forces of nature of course!

What OddOneOut will look and feel like is a little fuzzy at this point. But I hope that this blog will chart my progress and help to create a recognisible shape. It is of course also a blog of self discovery since OddOneOut is a reflection of my core values and an expression of my passion. I believe that design can help those that have a passion communicate it. Very simply put I believe that good design communicates that passion.

All geeks together, Science and Design.

I am currently reading The Canon: A whirligig tour of the beautiful basics of science by Natalie Angier. As I read it I am learning new things and remembering old lessons shoved to the back of my mind. It is making me look at the world from a different perspective which I think is good for me! Angier comments on the relatively recent phenomenon of labelling all scientists as geeks or nerds. If this is the case I think designers might be counted as geeks also. Not that we are wrestling with theories of everything or creating ground breaking discoveries that will change the world, but that we are just a little bit overly obsessed by small details. We have large collection of typefaces and pantone references are like the periodic table to us. We are guilty of talking in a code that often excludes non designers and can often have a self inflated view of our own importance. Hang on, those last two points include most other professions too, so how come they are not labelled in such a negative way? I think the main issue is lack of relevancy and issues of communication.

Science does not figure obviously in most of our lives, even though we interact with science in every aspect of day to day living, it doesn't mean that the whys and whats are of interest to us. Science seems to be something we are very interested in when we are young but kind of looses its shine once we have moved on from the buttons and flashing lights of the science museum. If scientists want to reclaim their rightful place on the list of jobs most dreamt about, by young girls and boys they need to put a bit more emphasis on good old fashioned communication. Design, in this case, as well as performing the function of translating a lot of very complex information simply also needs to convey the passion and inertia that drives science ever onward. It is that excitement and curiosity that fizzles with age for most of us and yet I am sure can be reignited.