ASCERTAINING SUCCESS IN GRAPHIC DESIGN: AN EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACH
In the corporate environment, designers often adopt the role of translators. They are given objectives by the client and tasked with converting concrete performance outcomes into workable design directions. When iterations of the in-progress design are critiqued, they are evaluated in terms of the aesthetic preferences of the client − most often a layperson. Because both design rationale and preferences are frequently subjective, designers then assume the role of a salesperson, forced to defend their often-arbitrary design intuitions and decisions against a budget-oriented client. Once a compromise is met, the design is finalized and implemented. In the event that the final product does not garner a positive reception, the designer becomes a diplomat, handling the client and the work that has been produced as delicately as possible, and mitigating responsibility for the design’s shortcomings by emphasizing the collaborative, subjective nature of the work. Indeed, designers often give lip service to the success of a design. Designers talk about their alleged success as though it was completely objective, something that can be demonstrated quantitatively, yet do so without any reliable or valid metrics of effectiveness. In this arrangement, the client is forced to accept the designer’s opinions as objective truth, which could potentially expose the client to any adverse (and often unknown) consequences
1
that may result from the proposed solution. Hence, clients are beginning to demand more reliable evidence that designs will work as intended (Martin, 2009). This paper will provide an overview of the history of the evidence-based approach, weigh the costs and benefits of its implementation in design, identify facets of the graphic design industry that could benefit from an evidence-based approach, and demonstrate how an evidence-based approach might be implemented in those contexts, specifically, in package design.
Problem Many designers will claim that they are already engaging in research as part of the design process. However, design practitioners often use the term research in reference to the gathering of information from soft sources, such as magazine articles or web searches (Dickson & White, 1993). True research, however, also requires the generation and dissemination of novel information. Hamilton and Watkins (2009) outline a four-level taxonomy of evidence-based practitioners: critical interpretation of current literature (Level 1), commitment to hypothesis and measurement (Level 2), unbiased reporting of research outcomes (Level 3), and submission of findings for peer review (Level 4). In this model, Hamilton and Watkins (2009) also include a fifth category of practitioner, Level 0:
those who pretend to practice on the basis of evidence. Level 0 practitioners “lack any form of rigor, simply mouthing the platitudes they believe will convince a client to engage them� (p. 33) This lack of rigor would be considered unprofessional and unethical in many other disciplines. In both the hard and soft sciences, for example, a finding is not considered reliable if it has not been subjected to the highest level of academic rigor: publication in a peer-reviewed journal (Davidson & Spring, 2006). For findings to be publishable, social scientists must clearly demonstrate their research methodology before they discuss their findings. This transparency assures that reviewers can identify any flaws in the research process that may have compromised the results, or if the study is indeed credible, allows other researchers to replicate and build upon the work. In the field of medicine, the reliability of proposed designs, methods, and treatments is essential. Patients need to feel confident in medical professionals’ certainty that prescribed treatments are reliable and effective. Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) is defined as a systematic process of evaluating scientific research that is used as the basis of clinical choices (Claridge & Fabian, 2005). Historically, medicine was not always approached in this fashion, but rather as a practice in trial-and-error (Doherty, 2005). Over time, practitioners began to document their
3
trials, create systems for testing their hypotheses, and standardize their trials to ensure that their results could be reliably applied to broader populations. Mainstream acceptance of the use of evidence in medicine was neither rapid nor without contention. The application of scientific methods in medicine was initially met with resistance, and is taking decades to gain formal acceptance by the medical community. The term evidence-based medicine was first published only 20 years ago (Guyatt, 1992). Since then, it has been regarded as the “gold standard� of medical knowledge, and the optimal way to practice medicine (Saarni & Gylling, 2004).
Evidence-Based Design The use of evidence in design disciplines has followed a path similar to that of its use in medicine, albeit much more recently (Martin, 2009). As with practitioners of medicine, designers can benefit from the use of research as a source of information for their work. In architecture and interior design, any errors made by the designer have the potential to pose serious risks to the safety of the structure’s occupants. Clients in those fields resultantly demand more fact-based information, and require more assurance that the designs they are paying for will be both effective and safe (Pable, 2009; Stankos & Schwarz, 2007).
When stakes are high, clients expect the professionals with whom they consult to be confident that proffered recommendations will achieve desired outcomes. Such confidence is strengthened when founded in evidence, not intuition alone (Dawes, Faust, & Meehl, 1989). As Becker (1999) writes, “Scientists don’t make decisions without checking the research data. Physicians don’t prescribe penicillin because they like the color pink” (p. 57). Designers, then, should not propose solutions without being able to anticipate and measure the effects of those solutions with confidence. Because of this increased demand for certainty in design, architecture and interior design have seen a growing movement towards the implementation of evidence-based design (EBD), which can be understood as an iterative decision-making process by which the designer hypothesizes beneficial, tangible outcomes, measures these outcomes throughout the design process, and then analyzes the outcomes in relation to stated design objectives. Stewart-Pollack and Menconi (2005) define EBD as: “the practice of grounding design solutions and decisions in a researched and documented knowledge base that includes the analysis and interpretation of research” (p. 225). EBD promises myriad benefits to the professional designer, including; 1) differentiation of an expert in the
5
field from a novice; 2) stronger understanding of design decisions; 3) provision of convincing rationale for design decisions; and 4) the reorientation of public perceptions regarding the design profession’s legitimacy, credibility, and prestige. Despite these potential benefits, the movement towards EBD has been met with internal resistance. This resistance has been mounted on the basis of prescriptiveness, infeasibility, expense, vulnerability, and the notion of research as a proprietary asset (Brandt, Chong, & Martin, 2010). If graphic design is to join this nascent trend in design thinking, practitioners must overcome their reservations and instill the necessary orientation in emergent designers at the earliest stages of collegiate education. The challenges facing the graphic design profession are onerous, but they must be viewed as an opportunity to improve processes, enhance pedagogy, and better the perception of the profession.
Benefits of EBD in Business The state of the graphic design industry has made practitioners apprehensive. Self-taught lay people are able to perform the work of professional graphic designers, often faster and more cheaply. Many companies do not consider professional design of their printed and digital collateral to be a necessity. As a result, the professional graphic
design community has become egocentric and insular, assuming that any client unable to recognize the value of their work is simply unenlightened and subject to mockery or dismissal (Buchanan, 2008). Graphic designers would do well to understand the perspective of these companies, many of whom are their potential clients. Corporations often regard graphic design as a “beautiful expense,� but one that does not necessarily aim to serve performance outcomes (Brandt, Chong & Martin, 2008, p.3). If a company prioritizes effectiveness over attractiveness, one might understand why they would regard hiring a professional graphic designer, whom they believe to be preoccupied with aesthetics, as a trivial investment of time and money. Good design often yields attractive results, which is perhaps why graphic design is often misconstrued as decorative. Professional graphic designers, however, are concerned with the underlying ideas being communicated, not the superficial attractiveness of the materials (Stone & Rigsby, 2009). Clients who do not value good design do not understand the interrelatedness of aesthetics and effective communication, and designers have no way of demonstrating the latter. Thus, designers are left making empty claims about design successes, which are often based on arbitrary and unreliable criteria.
7
Adopting an evidenced-based approach to graphic design might garner greater public perception of the field and necessitate professional graphic design within key areas of society. If designers were able to walk into a meeting with peer-reviewed research to support their recommendations, they would be better equipped to defend their design decisions. If designers could predict the potential return-on-investment for their designs by citing reliable, published frameworks, they might gain higher priority in client budgeting. If in a post-evaluation meeting, designers could produce concrete evidence of the design’s performance alongside the pre-defined performance benchmarks, the client would be instilled with greater confidence in their investment and a more holistic broader sense of customer satisfaction. The designer is responsible for envisioning and interpreting social, cultural, technological and economic futures, a skill crucial to the success of organizations (Cooper & Evans, 2006). Designers are in a position of great importance to their clients, one from which they have the ability to leverage design knowledge, expertise, and research to meet corporate objectives. It is the professional responsibility of designers to utilize all available avenues to assure the client’s success. If designers neglect to consider relevant research, they put the client at a competitive disadvantage. According to the American Institute of Graphic Artists (AIGA) (Stone & Rigsby, 2009), conducting
research is an ethical imperative: “a professional designer conducts the necessary research and analysis to create sound communication design with clearly stated goals and objectives.� (p. 37).
Criticisms of Evidence-Based Design There are many valid concerns amongst graphic designers about adopting an evidence-based approach. Indeed, the implementation of EBD is faced with major obstacles. Design is often characterized as an inherently abstruse, intuitive creativity (Brandt, Chong, & Martin, 2010). Design processes and rationale therein are inaccessible to the client, who is expected to support recommendations through blind faith. Without the ability to argue and question and discover, however, design itself is merely an act of faith (Heller, 2006). Many practitioners perceive the transparency required by an evidence-based approach to be threatening, exposing their work to criticism, stifling innovation, and diminishing the value of their personal judgments (Skibsted, 2011). Evidence-based design, however, might actually serve to protect the designer from culpability, make design innovations more meaningful, and catalyze the advancement of the field. While it is understandable that designers might be apprehensive about the ability to clearly measure potential
9
failure, EBD also has the ability to inform the design, somewhat insulating the designer against the possibility of creating work that completely misses the mark. EBD is no insurance policy, however. Even when an EBD approach is employed, it is still possible to create designs that do not adequately meet outlined business objectives, just as it is possible to create successful designs without EBD. The benefit to using an EBD approach is that if a design should happen to be unsuccessful, the designer can cite the evidence that was foundational in their decision making process, speculate with confidence about why the outcome was not as intended, emphasize the areas in which the design did succeed, and make recommendations that might ameliorate the situation. Designers also have concerns about the profitability of EBD. When private corporations conduct user research, the findings are often kept internally. In that environment, research is regarded as a proprietary asset, essential in differentiation from primary competitors. Evidence-based design requires designers to not only be transparent with their clients, but also with the broader design community. For an evidence-based design approach to be implemented in the corporate environment, design firms (and their clientele) must recognize EBD as a value-added component of design (Martin, 2009). While in the shortterm, collaboration amongst corporations in design
research seems to compromise the ability for companies to differentiate and profit, the long-term benefits of EBD are to the contrary. When designers isolate their research, companies end up reinventing the wheel, spending resources exploring issues that other companies have probably already studied. If this information were published and made freely accessible to the design community, it would free up resources to research more compelling and complex issues in the field, and in-house researchers could focus on issues more specific to the company’s unique needs.
Design Thinking & Pedagogy Graphic design as a profession traces its roots back to the fine arts, and elements of that fine arts orientation still pervade design thinking and pedagogy. This design philosophy serves as a barrier to the incorporation of empirical research into the design process. Proponents of traditional design education are concerned that research will compromise the artistic integrity and originality of design, and that research will drive form without consideration for the artistic aspects of the design (Kopec, Sinclair, & Matthes, 2011). Those who advocate for an EBD approach argue that the traditional art-based design epistemology relies too heavily on personal feelings, subjective judgments,
11
intuition, and imagination, at the expense of social and professional responsibilities (Salama, 2006). Many designers believe that research and design exist at odds with one another. Research is often viewed as dry and regimented, while design is energetic and creative (Dickson & White, 1993). Csikszentmihalyi (2009) defines creativity as “any act, idea, or product that changes an existing domain, or that transforms an existing domain into a new one� (p. 28). By this definition, research should most certainly be considered a creative process. The contribution of new information to a body of knowledge is a creative and even transformative act, as it also enhances practitioners’ understanding of their field. Incorporating evidence into the design process would not require designers to abandon intuition and conform to purely traditional, scientific research methods. Rather, an evidence-based design process would combine experience-fueled intuition with reliable, substantiated data. Research is a positive, necessary dimension of undergraduate and graduate programs, not an immaterial, pedagogic make-work (Heller, 2006). Creative intelligence remains the driving force of design work; the use of evidence can inform and enhance that intelligence. The emphasis placed upon intuitiveness in design practitioners is in part due to the predecessors of modern graphic design, such as Rand, Wiggins, and Thompson,
who founded and defined the practice of “graphic design� as an intuitive practice that could be leveraged strategically for business (Bennett, 2006). Some degree of intuitiveness will always be a part of the design process. In EBD, those intuitions are reserved for the appropriate contexts, in which risk is low and previous experience is high (Hamilton & Watkins, 2009). More consequential decisions should be founded in research. One of the most pressing issues in the implementation of EBD in the design discipline is the lack of training in research methods among practitioners (Martin, 2009). Very few design professionals are even sensitive to the nature of credible scholarly sources, let alone able to conduct original, empirical research (Kopec, Sinclair, & Matthes, 2011). If the profession is going to capitalize on EBD, this shift must be reflected in design pedagogy and implemented at the undergraduate level. Most design research currently occurs in graduate programs or amongst faculty, and very few programs encourage legitimate research opportunities for undergraduates (Zborowsky 2010). While this may be attributed to a lack of research education among the faculty (Dickinson, Marsden, & Read, 2007), it is important that components of research are integrated into studio projects, and that educators demonstrate the value of applying research findings to design work.
13
Promoting an EBD approach in the classroom is not necessarily creating the expectation for all designers to be skilled independent researchers. Rather, this approach can educate future designers to minimally be informed consumers of literature and proponents of empirical research, able to determine a study’s intellectual merit and its applicability to their current work (Zborowsky, 2010. To incorporate EBD into undergraduate design programs, curricula should be structured to reinforce the value of research cumulatively, building upon the students’ skill in evaluating and conducting research throughout the undergraduate experience. Upon graduation, students should not only understand how to find and evaluate relevant literature, they should also have a theoretical understanding of how to empirically study design issues, and be able to develop rationale for key design decisions and justify those rationale quantitatively (Heller, 2006). Failure to expose undergraduates to research methods, especially in the research university setting, is a missed opportunity. Among the most important objectives of a research university are to train future practitioners and produce empirical research that expands the profession’s body of knowledge (Roth, 1999). In this context, instructors and students have myriad resources at their disposal (access to scholarly journals, research grants, facilities, and so forth) that could aid in research endeavors. Yet due to a
lack of emphasis among some faculty, these resources are not used to their fullest extent. In the research university setting, an EBD approach might also serve as a credential for its matriculates, differentiating design graduates from their counterparts in less competitive programs, and from designers without formal training. The structure of the undergraduate design program is an important determinant of its students’ attitudes towards and definitions of research. While many design students endorse the use of research in their work, those endorsements do not extend to the idea of taking courses in research methods (Dickinson, Marsden, & Read, 2008). The reluctance amongst undergraduate designers to learn how to conduct research echoes the emphasis on studio work within their design programs (Burnett, 2004). Students in graphic design should be accustomed to thinking of research as more than data gathering. In a typical design studio project, students are asked to conduct research by scanning soft sources for information that will help them solve a particular design problem (Dickson & White, 1993). While information gathering and a review of literature is certainly an important part of the research process, it does not constitute the entire definition of research, which entails the generation of original insights, the testing of those insights, and the publication of the findings (Dickinson, Marsden & Read,
15
2007). By teaching students to think about research as a design imperative, we create future practitioners who are poised to implement EBD in practice.
Use of Evidence in Graphic Design The advancement and legitimization of the field is in the best interest of designers. Although traditionally, graphic design practitioners have favored intuition and creativity over empirical research, theoretical frameworks and validated research tools provide practitioners with a systematic method of studying the impact of design decisions on users. There are currently several scholarly journals that report research findings and theoretical perspectives on graphic design topics. However, an “intellectual chasm” exists between practice and research (Bennett, 2006, p.15). Because of their reliance on intuition and soft sources, most design practitioners have not yet followed the lead of design scholars into the realm of conducting empirical design research. An epistemological shift in the field has made an evidence-based approach more imperative. Traditionally, as creators of printed communications, designers sought to harness intuition to evoke a response from the target audience. In the early to mid-1990s, the concept of design “authorship” was introduced (Heller, 2006, p.11).
This phenomenon allowed designers to expand their influence and be seen as creators rather than mere visual translators (McCarthy, 2013). Because authorship entails both visual and verbal skills, as well as creative and critical thinking skills, the designer-as-author has the potential to stimulate research activities and debunk the assumption that graphic designers do not engage in scholarly writing (Lupton & Miller, 1996). But for designers to become skilled authors, they must first transcend the normative mode of inquiry. Now, with the advent of interactive media, a more collaborative design process is necessary. Designers are tasked with the creation of objects and experiences for and with the audience. Some degree of research is central to a collaborative, user-centered process. As such, several areas of the field are (to an extent) already engaging in research. Typeface Design Typeface design is one area of the field in which some practitioners have adopted an evidence-based approach. The research most often concentrates on legibility as it relates to size, type style, medium, and target audience. A typeface is most often created as either a revival of a historical model or to meet the specific needs of a client or project (Bi’lak, 2011; Phinney, 2011). In the former, simple information gathering is most often sufficient. In the latter, more rigorous research may be necessitated.
17
Because a comprehensive text face with multiple weights and styles may require up to a year to complete, typeface designers need to be confident that the resultant typeface will work as intended. An evidence-based approach is being used to evaluate typeface legibility for two reasons: imperative and simplicity. The legibility of type can be an issue of both public and personal safety. In highway signage for example, drivers’ inability to read type from an adequate distance may result in motor vehicle accidents (Yaffa, 2007). On prescription labels, if patients are unable to read the warnings or dosing information, their health may be at risk (McFeely, 2008). Also, type legibility is relatively simple to test empirically. If the copy is held constant, typographic variables (such as kerning, leading, weight, and size) can be isolated and manipulated as required by the research. User Experience Design Over the past two decades, interest in the field of user experience design (UXD) has burgeoned. UXD, primarily used in web and interactive media, is the judicious application of user-centered design practices and a highly contextual design mentality to produce predictable and desirable experiences for the target audience (Cummings, 2009). While by definition, UXD could fall under the scope of EBD, UXD in practice is often lacking in the rigor required of EBD as it is discussed in the literature.
In user experience design, the persona is an artificial person serving as a proxy of the target user group. The persona is intended to create empathy for the user’s unique needs, ensuring that subsequent design decisions will attempt to meet those needs. While the persona has become the de facto artifact of UXD, this approach is not without shortcomings. Personas are often developed speculatively by designers, based on an imaginative extrapolation of market research data provided by the client. When all subsequent research is based off of an arbitrarily defined representative of the target population – who may not even encapsulate or accurately represent that population – user experience research has only limited usefulness. Even when personas are developed through rigorous user research, the translation of research findings into personas, and the use of these personas as informants to the final design, can be a lossy process. The persona is often presented in the form of a narrative, detailing the life story of the fictional person. Personas gained prevalence in UXD about 14 years ago, after Cooper (1999) recommended their use as an empathy-building tool. While including trivial personal details might make the persona more realistic (Pruitt & Grudin, 2003), it is often at the expense of more pertinent user information specific to the design tasks at hand (McKay, 2011).
19
Regardless of how carefully developed and exhaustive persona documents are, in practice, these lengthy documents are often not even referenced or accurately recalled. When the design team does not take initiative to learn meaningful information about the persona, the most salient remnant of the initial research is the persona’s name, being used as a face-value alternative to the generic user (McKay, 2011). For the persona to be considered a viable application of an evidence-based approach to UXD: 1) the persona(s) must be the product of rigorous market research, 2) the persona(s) should be developed by researchers as prototypical members of key user groups, 3) the dimensions of the persona should be relevant to the design task(s), 4) practitioners must respect each user need identified for the persona(s), 5) identified user needs must serve as bases for further research or review of literature, and 6) practitioners must be trained to translate those research findings into the design solution.
Evidence-Based Package Design In addition to user experience and typeface design, another field that would benefit from a more liberal application of an evidence-based approach is package design. The manner in which companies communicate with their constituencies is a primary means of differentiation (Stone
& Rigsby, 2009). Maintaining an effective brand identity is a corporate imperative, both in differentiating from competitors and in building brand equity (Rundh, 2009). In retail settings, this identity must be conveyed solely through packaging – the “silent salesman” and ultimate touch point for consumer product brands (Roper & Parker, 2006, p. 473). Package design is an extremely influential medium. Its presence at the crucial moment of the purchase decision has a pervasive impact on consumers (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). Unlike the transmission of brand identity through advertising, packaging allows for a continuous transmission of that identity, even after the purchase decision is made. The package is often inextricable from the product; each time the product is used, the consumer re-engages with that presentation of the brand’s identity (Underwood, 2003). Oswald (2008) defines packaging as both the physical package and the semiotic aura surrounding goods (including brand story, advertising, display, and identity), used to entice consumers and build anticipation for the encased product. The role of the package designer has expanded from being a communicator to that of an image-maker (Mininni, 2008). The visual characteristics of packaging, now more than ever, are critical to the successful sale of a product, and a critical part of the marketing mix (Meyers & Gerstman, 2005).
21
In a post-hoc evaluation of package design (comparing pre- and post-redesign product sales), there would be too many variables to determine which dimensions of the design itself, if any, might have been responsible for any changes in product sales. Often times, packaging redesigns accompany new marketing and advertising campaigns, new copy writing, or some other form of direction shift. Unless the features of the package’s design can be isolated, the effectiveness of the design itself cannot be ascertained. Although extant research has demonstrated that package design can have a powerful impact on consumer decision making, it has provided only scant guidance as to which package design will elicit the desired response within the target market and why (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). Currently, there is a lack of insight into the relationships between key types of package designs and generic dimensions of consumer response. Identifying these archetypes would substantially improve practitioners’ understanding of package design, and aid in the creation of meaningful guidelines to assist design stakeholders in creating holistic package design solutions. As packaging encompasses so many different areas of graphic design, and each of those areas has an array of key tenets, it is difficult to evaluate the effects of all of these areas (and their key tenets) on consumer
responses independently, let alone understand how they might operate in conjunction. However, to leverage design effectively, companies need to be provided with guidelines for achieving brand management goals, or an overview of design types showing a range of options and their intended messages (Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). The lack of such guidelines leads to inefficient and uninformed design decision-making, and leaves managers and designers in the dark as to what method or aesthetic might yield the desired response. Another shortcoming of current package design literature is that it often fails to address specialized graphic design criteria meaningfully. Nuanced areas of consideration, such as typography, color, and imagery, are often evaluated in a single, broad variable (Agariya, Johari, Sharma, Chandraul & Singh, 2012; Butkeviciene, Stravinskiene, & Rutelione, 2008). While color is occasionally addressed as its own entity (Garber, Burke, & Jones, 2000; Kauppinen-Räisänen & Luomala, 2010; Kuvykaite, Dovaliene, & Navickiene, 2009), it is not usually discussed in relation to consumer brand perception. More general studies of color and semiotics border on pop-cultural clichÊ, and often do not reconcile the implications of their findings with the imperative of product differentiation. Comparative studies in type legibility are often only significant at dichotomous
23
extremes (Phinney, 2011). Moreover, because faces within type families vary greatly (especially in script and display faces), it is difficult to select a prototypical representative of each type family. Imagery is even more complex to evaluate; in addition to the many technical aspects of the image (such as raster/vector, composition, balance, and line), image content (such as product/people focus, semiotics, cultural norms, and race/gender attitudes) must also be considered (Underwood, Klein, & Burke, 2001). A common methodology for evaluating packaging design is to extract variables from the package design context completely for isolated evaluation (Ampuero & Vila, 2006). However, such methodologies fail to account for the influence of the shelf environment, the presence of direct competitors, and the limited time in which a purchase decision is made on consumer behavior. In the retail environment, consumers evaluate packages holistically. Thus, Young (2005) recommends that package designs be measured in high-fidelity retail environments, with holistic package designs as stimuli. Using design vocabulary to define package design criteria would yield both a more accurate understanding of package design and its expected effects on consumer response, and may also produce a more holistic view of package design attributes from the perspective of the package’s creator – the graphic designer (Forty, 1992).
Interdisciplinary Research Valuable research already exists in the fields of marketing and psychology that could address complex design issues, inform and enhance design endeavors, and further the body of knowledge in graphic design. However, many of the findings are inaccessible to practitioners, as they are primarily found in specialized journals, usually only freely accessible through university libraries (Fisher, 2004). The prolix, cumbersome presentation of information, combined with heavy use of technical jargon and advanced statistics, serve as additional obstacles for the use of this research by designers (Dickson & White, 1993). To apply research findings to design work, graphic designers must first learn to speak the language of researchers. Design studies affirm that graphic designers are producers of interdisciplinary knowledge, not just visual translators of client content (Bennett, 2006). Design theories span many disciplines, from business and consumer behavior to the social sciences. Although graphic designers’ expertise in visual communications would be a valuable contribution to interdisciplinary knowledge, the language barrier between designers and researchers can make participation in interdisciplinary research arduous. If graphic designers are to fully benefit from interdisciplinary research collaboration, design vernacular and
25
expertise must broaden to include research terminology, reasoning skills, and practical analytics. The implementation of EBD in graphic design might increase the number of scholarly articles geared toward and accessible to design practitioners. Furthermore, the training graphic designers would need to undergo to adopt an EBD approach would also make them more savvy consumers of research literature, and make them able to synthesize and apply research in related disciplines to their work.
Application of EBD Research in consumer behavior, for example, has important implications for package designers. At times, the conventional wisdom of the graphic design community exists at odds with consumer behavioral literature. This is not to suggest that clinical judgment and empirical research inherently exist in conflict, as normative design solutions often resonate with empirical findings. However, without any reliable means of comparing the two, practitioners have no certainty that their design intuitions are eliciting the desired response. In such instances, it would be valuable to empirically test the efficacy of the clinical judgment of practitioners against consumer behavioral insights. In this section, I intend to demonstrate how an EBD approach might be used to accomplish this.
One instance in which the conventional wisdom of the design community may not be accurately calibrated to consumer behavior is in an impulse buying scenario. Butkeviciene, Stravinskiene, and Rutelione (2008) found that consumers weigh visual attributes of packaging more heavily in impulsive purchases than for planned purchases. Additionally, when consumers are pressed for time in low-involvement purchase decisions, they tend to rely more heavily upon visual elements of packaging than they might under normal conditions (Silayoi & Speece 2004). These findings suggest that for impulse purchases, especially time-sensitive ones, the effectiveness of the package’s visual design is a greater imperative (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998). Another instance in which package design is instrumental in generating consumer preference is in the commodity product category. Because commodity products are relatively homogeneous, the most salient points of differentiation within that category are the product’s price and packaging (Meyers & Gerstman, 2005). Thus, one possible avenue of study that might benefit designers would be to examine what design features make a commodity product more appealing in a low-involvement, impulse buying scenario. There are several defining characteristics of impulsive purchases and consumers that may be valuable for a package designer to consider: the decision to buy is relatively rapid
27
(Kacen & Lee, 2002); there is little concern for possible ramifications of the purchase (Beatty & Ferrell, 1998; Rook, 1987); the buying decision emerges from a conflict between affect and cognition (Hoch & Loewenstein, 1991); and the buying decision elicits an emotional response (Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001).These characteristics can also be viewed as failed attempts at self-regulation (Faber & Vohs, 2004). Baumeister and Heatherton (1996) identify three causes of self-control failure: 1) conflicting goals, 2) failure to track one’s consumption behaviors, and 3) depletion of self-regulatory resources. People only have a limited capacity to control their behavior. Like strength or energy, self-regulation is a limited resource, subject to depletion after strenuous use (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister, 1998). Exerting self-control consumes strength, reducing the self-control available for subsequent attempts. Coping with stress, regulating negative affect, and resisting temptations all deplete cognitive resources, making subsequent attempts at self-control more likely to fail (Faber & Vohs, 2004). These psychological characteristics may have implications for the packaging features that consumers find most appealing under these conditions. For example, the principle of the depletion of cognitive resources over time may explain why in supermarkets, common impulse purchases (such as candy and gum) are frequently placed
in checkout line: customers have already been subjected to a battery of self-regulation checks and their ability to self-regulate is diminished, making impulse purchases more likely to occur (Hitt, 1996). Package designers serve as liaisons between marketers and consumers. Thus, the criteria designers use to define successful packaging are critical to the efficacy of the design in communicating marketers’ objectives. One attribute of effective package design that is frequently cited by graphic design practitioners is the novelty or uniqueness of the package (Acebedo, 2011; Silver, 2011; Story, 2007; Windisch, 2013). With a wide array of competing products, designers postulate that a package that stands out visually will entice the consumer. However, even if novel designs are more eye-catching, it is unclear whether this necessarily translates into consumer preference in impulse buying contexts. For instance, it is possible that prototypicality, not novelty, is more influential on consumer purchase decisions, especially when consumers are in a depleted cognitive state. Veryzen & Hutchinson (1998) define prototypicality as the degree to which an object is representative of a category (p. 375). When consumers engage in an internal search, they more easily recall brands that resemble other category members, making these brands more likely to be in their consideration set (Hoyer & MacInnis, 2008).
29
Indeed, when individuals are cognitively depleted, they may be more likely to rely upon existing preferences and cognitive schemata when choosing among product alternatives (Pocheptsova, Amir, Dhar & Baumeister, 2009). Thus, from a consumer behavioral perspective, one might hypothesize that when consumers are cognitively depleted, they will be more inclined to choose a prototypical package than a novel packaging design, the latter of which may be less consistent with preexisting cognitive schemas. If design researchers were able to leverage this psychological and behavioral research with their expertise in visual package design, designers could perhaps provide marketers with valuable insights into consumer’s impulsive commodity product preferences.
Conclusion & Implications Data-driven decision-making is integral to the future of corporate activities. If the graphic design community does not adopt this mentality, it risks obsolescence. In this new climate, those unwilling to take a collaborative, transparent approach to their design work will arouse skepticism in potential clients. It is possible those designers who undertake an EBD approach will be tasked with the most prestigious projects for the most informed clients (Martin, 2009). Hamilton & Watkins (2009) aptly encapsulate the importance of adopting an EBD approach:
If a modest change in practice can lead to better decisions, increased rigor, and the capture of relevant data that offer the potential for a competitive advantage, design practitioners would we well advised to adopt an evidence-based model. If widespread use of such a model improves the credibility and prestige of the profession, the leadership of the field should encourage its adoption. If such a model improves the standing and performance of the profession, the structure of professional education must adapt. (p. 6) Designers are responsible for delivering value to the organizations for which they work. If graphic designers can ground their recommendations with evidence, the judgment of designers will be more credible, and their prescriptions may be more likely to produce the anticipated results. While some areas of the profession (such as UXD and typeface design) have begun implementing research methodology into their processes, many other areas of the industry could also benefit from an EBD approach, especially package design. For EBD to gain prominence in professional practice, empirical research methods must first be taught at the undergraduate level. As the graphic design profession has not fully embraced the use of empirical research, there are several compelling research questions yet to be addressed in current EBD literature.
31
How does cognitive resource depletion interact with visual dimensions (color, typography, and imagery) of commodity product packaging (detergent, toothpaste, and flour) to influence consumer behavior? Is there a significant difference between cognitively depleted and non-cognitively depleted consumers in their preference for prototypical vs. novel commodity product packaging designs in an impulse buying scenario (with limited time to form a decision)? How does the conventional wisdom of graphic designers (defined through survey of practitioners) in creating effective commodity product packaging compare to the conventional wisdom of laypeople (defined through survey of the general population) in yielding consumer preference for the given commodity products (detergent, toothpaste, flour)? Addressing these questions would improve practitioners’ understanding of the role of graphic design in the sale of packaged goods, and inform corporations’ understanding of the value of hiring professional graphic designers. Packaging adds value to products, communicates key benefits and brand attributes, and differentiates products from those of its competitors. Therefore, it is imperative that the package’s design successfully addresses the target market, communicates brand attributes, and generates recognition and sale of the product.
The integration of an EBD approach into package design practice would be eminently beneficial to designers, their clients, their stakeholders, and their consumers, and is essential to verifying the effectiveness of designed packaging solutions. Professional designers are conscientious about the ramifications of their work. In an increasingly complex marketplace, they desire confidence that their designs deliver the anticipated results. If an EBD approach is incorporated into the design process, it has the potential to empower professionals with a means of ascertaining and even bolstering their successes.
33
References Acebedo, E. (2011). 10 tips on how to create great packaging designs. Naldz Graphics. Retrieved from naldzgraphics.net/tips/packaging-design-tips/. Agariya, A.K., Johari, A., Sharma, H.K., Chandraul, U.N. & Singh, D. (2012). The role of packaging in brand communication. International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3(2), 1-13. Ampuero & Vila (2006). Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(2), 100–112. Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Selfregulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7(1), 1–15. Beatty, S. E., & Ferrell, M. E. (1998). Impulse buying: Modeling its precursors. Journal of Retailing, 74(1), 169–191. Becker, F. (1999, Winter). Good medicine. Perspective, 56-62. Bennett, A. (2006). The rise of research in graphic design. In A. Bennett (Ed.), Design studies. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. 1(1), 14-25.
Bi’lak, P. (2011). We don’t need new fonts. Typotheque. Retrieved from https://www.typotheque.com/articles/ we_dont_need_new_fonts#. Brandt, R., Chong, G., & Martin, W. (Eds.) (2010). Design informed: Driving innovation with evidence-based design. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Buchanan, R. (2008). Issues facing the graphic design industry. New Views 2: Conversations and Dialogues in Graphic Design [Conference]. London College of Communication, University of the Arts. London, UK. 11 July 2008. Burnett, L. (2004, July 1). Get real. Contract, Retrieved from http://www.contractdesign.com/contract/ ls/Archived-Article1403.shtml?articletitle=COLUMNS-NONE_Essay_ Get Real_47.xml Claridge, J., & Fabian, T. (2005). History and development of evidence-based medicine [Electronic version]. World Journal of Surgery, 29(1), 547-553. Cohen, A., & Hersh, W. (2004). Guest editorial: Criticisms of evidence-based medicine. Evidence-Based Cardiovascular Medicine, 8(1), 197-198. Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum: Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How to Restore the Sanity. Indianapolis, IN: Sams Publishing.
Cooper, R.; Evans, M. (2006). Breaking from tradition: market research, consumer needs, and design futures. Design Management Review, 17(1), 68-74. Cummings, M. (2009, August 16). UX design defined. Retrieved from http://uxdesign.com/ux-defined. Csikszenthihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperPerennial. Davidson, K., & Spring, B. (2006). Developing an evidence base in clinical psychology. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 249-271. Dawes, R., Faust, D., Meehl, P. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, New Series, 243(4899), 1668-1674. Dickinson, J., Marsden, J., & Read, M. (2007). Empirical design research: Student definitions, perceptions, and values. Journal of Interior Design, 32(2), 1-12. Dickson, A. W., & White, A. C. (1993). Are we speaking the same language? Practitioners’ perceptions of research and the state of the profession. Journal of Interior Design, 19(1), 3-10.
Doherty, S. (2005). History of evidence-based medicine. Oranges, chloride of lime and leeches: Barriers to teaching old dogs new tricks. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 17(1), 314-321. Faber, R.; Vohs, K. (2004). To buy or not to buy?: Selfcontrol and self regulatory failure in purchase behavior. Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, 2(1), 509-524. New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications. Kindle Edition. Fisher, T. (2004, Fall/2005, Winter). Architects behaving badly: Ignoring environmental behavior research. Harvard Design Magazine, 21(1), 1-3. Forty, A. (1992), Objects of Desire. London, UK: Thames and Hudson. Garber, L., Burke, R. & Jones J. (2000). The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice. Marketing Science Institute. Retrieved from http://facstaff.elon.edu/lgarber/misc/garber-package-color-consumer-choice.pdf. Goodwin, K. (2008). Perfecting your personas. Cooper Journal. Retrieved from http://www.cooper.com/journal/2001/08/perfecting_your_personas.html.
Guyatt, G. (1992). Evidence-based medicine: A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 268, 2420-2425. Hamilton, K., & Watkins, D. (2009). Evidence-based design for multiple building types. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Heller, S. (2006). Better skills through better research. In A. Bennett (Ed.), Design studies (1 ed.). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. 10-13. Hitt, J. (1996). The theory of supermarkets. New York Times Magazine, 56-61, 94, 98. Hoch, S. J., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1991). Time inconsistent preferences and consumer self-control. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 492–507. Hoyer, W., & MacInnis, D. (2008). Consumer behavior. (5 ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Kacen, J. J., & Lee, J. A. (2002). The influence of culture on consumer impulsive buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(1), 163–176. Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. & Luomala, H. 2010. Exploring consumer’s product-specific colour meanings. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 13(3), 287-308.
Kopec, D., Sinclair, E., & Matthes, B. (2011). Evidence based design: A process for research and writing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Kuvykaite, R., Dovaliene, A., Navickiene, L. (2009). Impact of package elements in consumer purchase decision. Economics & Management, 14(1), 441-447. Lupton, E. & Miller, J. (1996). Design writing research: Writing on graphic design. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Martin, C. (2009, Spring). The challenge of integrating evidence-based design. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 2(3), 29-50. McCarthy, S. J. (2013). The designer as... author, producer, activist, entrepreneur, curator and collaborator: New models for communicating. BIS: Amsterdam. McFeely, C. (2008, March 4). New prescription labeling guidelines promote medication safety for people with vision loss. American Foundation for the Blind. Retrieved from http://www.afb.org/ section.aspx?FolderID=1&SectionID=47&SubTopicID=43&DocumentID=3992. McKay, E. (2011, June 8). Personas: dead yet?. UX Design Edge, Retrieved from http://www.uxdesignedge. com/2011/06/personas-dead-yet/.
Meyers, H. and Gerstman, R. (2005). The visionary package: using packaging to build effective brands. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Mininni, T. (2008). Maximizing Brand Image through Package Design. Flexible Packaging, 10(2), 6. Muraven, M.; Tice, D.; Baumeister, R., (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. JSPS, 74(3), 774-789. Orth, U., Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic Package Design and Consumer Brand Impressions. Journal of Marketing: May 2008, 72(3), 64-81. Oswald, L. (1996). The place and space of consumption. Design Issues, 12(1), 48-62. Pable, J. (2009). Interior design identity in the crossfire: A call for renewed balance in subjective and objective ways of knowing. Journal of Interior Design, 34(2), v-xx. Phinney, T. (2011, August 11). How to explain why typography matters. Communication Arts, Retrieved from http://www.commarts.com/columns/ how-explain-typography.
Pocheptsova, A., Amir, O., Dhar, R., & Baumeister, R. (2009). Deciding without resources: Resource depletion and choice in context. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 344-355. Pruitt, J. & Grudin, J. (2003) Personas: Practice and theory. Microsoft Research. Retrieved from http://research. microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/coet/grudin/personas/old%20versions/pruitt-grudinold.pdf. Rook, D. (1987). The buying impulse. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(1), 189–199. Roper, S. and Parker, C. (2006). How The Mighty Have Fallen: Branded Litter. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5-6), 473-487. Roth, S. (1999). The state of design research. Design Issues, 15(2), 18-26. Rundh, B. 2009. Packaging design: creating competitive advantage with product packaging. British Food Journal, 111(9), 988-1002. Saarni, S. & Gylling, H. (2004). Evidence based medicine guidelines: A solution to rationing or politics disguised as science? Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 171-175. Salama, A. M. (2006). Learning from the environment: Evaluation research and experience based architectural pedagogy. CEBE Transactions, 3(1), 64-83.
Silayoi, P. & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions: An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food Journal, 106(8), 607-628. Silver, S. (2011). 5 Key Elements to Great Package Design. Envision Creative. Retrieved from www.envision-creative.com/5-key-elements-to-great-package-design/. Skibsted, J.M. (2011, February 15). User-led innovation can’t create breakthroughs: Just ask Apple and IKEA. FastCo Design. Retrieved from http://www. fastcodesign.com/1663220/user-led-innovation-cantcreate-breakthroughs-just-ask-apple-and-ikea. Stankos, M., & Schwarz, B. (2007, January). Evidencebased design in healthcare: A theoretical dilemma. Interdisciplinary Design and Research, 1(1), 1-55. Stewart-Pollack J., & Menconi R. (2005). Designing for privacy and related needs. New York: Fairchild. Stone, J. & Rigsby, L. (2009). A client’s guide to design. AIGA: Design Business and Ethics, 2(1),12-39. Retrieved from www.aiga.org/ design-business-and-ethics/. Story, L. (2007). Product packages now shout to get your attention. The New York Times. Retrieved from www. nytimes.com/2007/08/10/business/10package.html.
Stravinskiene, J., Rutelione, A., Butkeviciene, V. (2008). Impact of consumer package communication on consumer decision-making process. Engineering Economics, 1(56), 5765. Underwood, R.L. (2003). The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Winter, 62-76. Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. & Burke, R.R. (2001). Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management,10(7), 403-422. Verplanken, B. & Herabadi, A. (2001), Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(1), 71–83. Veryzer, R. & Hutchinson, J. (1998). The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 374-385. Windisch, L. (2013, November 21). 6 food packaging design tips that’ll make your brand jump off the shelf [Web log message]. Retrieved from 99designs.com/ customer-blog/food-packaging-design-tips/.
Yaffa, J. (2007, August 12). The road to clarity. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com/2007/08/12/magazine/12fonts-t. html?pagewanted=all. Young, S. (2005). Five principles for effective packaging research. Brand Packaging. Retrieved from http://www.prsresearch.com/prs-insights/article/ five-principles-for-effective-packaging-research/. Zborowsky, T. (2010). Integrating research into a reflective practice of design: Moving interior design into the future. In C. Martin & D. Guerin (Eds.), The State of the Interior Design Profession. New York: Fairchild Books, 136-142.
The text is composed in Avenir Book 11.5/18. Headings are set in Avenir Next Condensed Demi Bold 18/18. While every effort was made to perform a thorough review of current literature on EBD and the use of research methods in graphic design, it is possible that other studies exist that have not been addressed in these findings. The author would like to thank Prof. Steven McCarthy, Dr. Caren Martin, and Mr. Joseph Vitriol for their review of and feedback on earlier iterations of this paper.
Whitney M. Thurman University of Minnesota – Twin Cities College of Design, Housing & Apparel