From In-house Design ~ Topics: inhouse issues, personal essay, professional development

Trust: How to Get It and Why You Need It

Since graduating college in 1999 I have had three in-house jobs—kind of scary to say out loud, but it’s true. During my first two years out of school I worked at a branding studio in San Francisco. I loved every minute of it. Northern California was the place to be during the dot-com boom. I was a designer on the first breakthrough Pottery Barn Kids e-commerce site, which, coincidentally, ended up being the last job that marchFIRST programmed before shutting its doors in 2001. As the dot-com boom came to a screeching halt later that year, I decided to relocate to Chicago to be closer to family and friends.

Though I don’t consider myself the sole cause of the dot-com crash, the thought did cross my mind as it followed me from the West Coast to the Midwest for a solid year. In the midst of this economic debacle I landed a few freelance gigs and one solid job that lasted six months. I survived two rounds of pink slips, but being the most recent hires, an enormously talented ex-VSA copywriter and I got the boot. It was embarrassing, but I realized that many others from our community were facing similar challenges all across the country.

After an extended job hunt I landed contract work at a mid-size studio, and later, a permanent position at a 300+ person architectural firm as its in-house graphic designer. I struggled with the idea of “going in-house” again and what it would do to my career in the long run. But my pocketbook was teetering on empty and I felt more comfortable with a permanent position—a big motivator for many in-house designers. And hey, architecture is design, which makes it OK, right?

On my first day at the firm I was given a fresh, one-week-old copy of the “Branding Guidelines.” It was the only copy in existence besides the one the CEO had. The logo, marketing materials, PowerPoint presentation, color palette, even the business cards were being rolled out on my first day by an outside studio. I opened the color palette page and saw five colors; two grays, a green, a yellow and a red. It looked like a traffic light. My boss, the director of marketing, told me that the CEO was satisfied with it and didn’t want to change or add a thing.

Our clients need to believe in what we are selling and to believe in us. From a graphic design perspective, the onus is on us to make our visual communications clear, impactful and meaningful.

A side note to studio designers (and I have fallen victim to this at Pottery Barn, Schwab and other companies for which I have developed brand guidelines): the in-house design team needs to use your system on a daily basis. So make it flexible, make it inspirational and make it informative. If we “innies” don’t believe in it, we are not going to use it—trust me on this.

So, with a client base of 300+ architects, three colors and two shades of gray, I had a huge consistency issue on my hands. Architects are designers, and I love and appreciate their devotion to design principles, but they are not graphic designers—and that can be a rather difficult concept for them to accept. It soon became clear to me that, in order to maintain the graphic standards that I believed were necessary for the firm’s brand to be successful, I had to gain the trust of the CEO and the design leaders of each market and convince them to believe that graphic design comes from a graphic designer—an in-house graphic designer, at that. Our clients need to believe in what we are selling and to believe in us. From a graphic design perspective, the onus is on us to make our visual communications clear, impactful and meaningful.

It took much patience and a few years to build trust among my clients, both in the value of good graphic design and in me. I remember one late night standing in front of three 4 x 8-foot presentation boards intended to sell our healthcare services with their charts, graphs and half-completed renderings, when the design leader quipped to me, “Graphic design is hard to explain.” I shot him a glance and replied, “It is even harder to believe in.”

In a graphic design studio you are awarded jobs based on your experience, reputation, portfolio and salesmanship. Clients want to trust you because they are paying you, and if they don’t trust you, they will change your design. With in-house design, though, there exists the unique opportunity to dive deeper into the day-to-day business with the clients and upper management and share their insight and experiences. Most of us have a client-facing job where every day we play the designer, account manager and partner. If we are good at it, we are awarded with the holy grail of trust, and the rapport and support that trust brings.

After my first year at the firm—and the addition of eight more colors (just how is an architect meant to represent trees, a parking lot, directional sunlight, windows and pedestrian walkways with three colors and two shades of gray?)—I was given the opportunity to work with design teams for client projects that included Orbitz, the Chicago Transit Authority and Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, among others. It was an exciting and fulfilling time for me, but, after five years, I felt it was time for a new career opportunity. I left the firm in a good place with two part-time graphic designers, one intern and two books in the works with the Architectural Design Leaders and Bruce Mau Design. My daily connection with the C-level partners proved to be an enormous benefit to my career from a design, business and personal perspective. Reflecting back to my initial doubts about “going in-house,” I can say that it’s not going to ruin your career and it’s not a mistake. In fact, it can be quite rewarding by getting you access to decision makers—sometimes quicker than you may like!


About the Author: Lisa Gainor believes that communication design is at the heart of human experience. Gainor graduated from the Academy of Art University and the University of San Francisco and began her career at Addis-Creson, a design consultancy committed to creating positive change. Relocating to Chicago in 2001, she became the visual voice at OWP/P Architects. In 2007 she developed relationships with local Chicago retailers Crate and Barrel and Paper Source, where she specialized in print and interactive brand communication. In 2009 she started her own design studio, Hello Designers, which aims to positively affect the world in a clear, memorable and beautiful way. Although she is technically no longer an “innie,” she remains passionate about in-house issues. Gainor serves as the development co-chair for AIGA Chicago’s board of directors. See her work at www.hellodesigners.com or visit her blog at www.hellodesigners.com/blog.

  1. link to this comment by AIGA site editor Wed Aug 05, 2009

    A comment was removed due to inappropriate content. AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work. If you believe your comment was removed in error, please contact the site editor.

  2. link to this comment by mark misenheimer Fri Aug 07, 2009

    this is spot on. the trust factor filters into everything that we designers provide from the initial concept to the final web site or printed piece, and clarifying it and keeping a client's confidence in us is extremely important to the relationship.

  3. link to this comment by John Snell Thu Aug 13, 2009

    I agree, in-house design should not be considered a career killer. Speaking from experience, an in-house job can be a huge help in re-building your portfolio after a long period of inactivity--for instance, if you foolishly take a non-design job for a while. I think the largest challenge I've had in in-house design is having long periods of time when the work you're asked to do is simply not worth sticking into your portfolio. If you're an in-house designer, you should try to cultivate some good high-profile side-work. If you're lucky enough to be in-house during a re-branding push, or a freshening up of the brand, you can come across some really great opportunites to build your experience and portfolio. The thing to realize is that from inside the corporate structure, you're privy to knowledge and culture that may not necessarily be available, or apparent to an agency. And you're a whole lot cheaper, too.

  4. link to this comment by Sara Jones Wed Aug 19, 2009

    As a newbie, 2 years out, I've worked for 4 mid to large in house departments. And although not always rewarding it has built up my portfolio with enough real world projects to land me some good interviews with local agencies. It is a stigmata no doubt but can work out in your favor. Designing anything is better than not and working through those challenges has increased my confidence 10 fold. It doesn't seem to be the place for people who like a fast paced environment. I usually have eons of time to accomplish projects that my agency counters get 2 weeks to do, which can be good and bad. It sure beats being a bank teller or folding t-shirts at the gap though.

  5. link to this comment by BlindAcre Wed Aug 26, 2009

    I agree 100% with this article. Your clients have to trust you from the very first time you speak and have a meeting. They are coming to you, the professional, because they need somebody to trust with their business, branding...whatever it may be.

    Great Article.

  6. link to this comment by Sally Faust Sun Aug 30, 2009

    As a principal at Faust, the design firm responsible for the, "Branding Guidelines" cited in Ms. Gainor's essay, I feel compelled to add some important insight into her criticism of our work—especially in light of the fact she was not at all involved in the rigorous year-long vetting process done in relationship to the identity prior to her arrival at OWP/P. Using the branding guidelines we developed for OWP/P as the basis of her opinion about trust, or lack thereof, is galling.

    First, regarding her backhanded "looks like a traffic light" criticism of our color palette: As a professional designer, Ms. Gainor should know that color, and the interpretation of color, is largely subjective and that her opinion is just that—her opinion. Because, as she confirms, she determined on her first day that she didn't like the color palette (and had the temerity to actually voice this to everyone but the designers) doesn't give her the right to change it on a whim and at the risk of undermining this company's significant investment of time, thought and money in their new identity. I also question why Ms. Gainor would have consistency issues with such a seemingly small color palette. If given a color palette with, say, 25 options, she would have no different a problem with consistency. Consistency issues are caused by users and their lack of vision and discipline.

    In addition, the color palette contained within those guidelines was thoughtfully and intelligently determined after interviewing nearly 50 key internal stakeholders at OWP/P. We collectively came to the conclusion that the architects responsible for "designing" their presentations had a problem with color. This is to say that each held so many strong opinions about color that color became a distraction while creating their presentations. This was voiced to us in particular by the in-house design team (as well as the principals) who were frustrated by issues relating to consistency and credibility when looking at the unsystematic presentations created by various teams, including the in-house design team. Our final, collective, determination was that everyone needed less choice. We ultimately developed a color palette that would not compete, but wed well, with the portfolio images used so predominantly in their presentations and we think it would have been successful were it not for the arrival of Ms. Gainor. It was and still is our belief that the colors they used distracted their audiences from being able to study and appreciate their work. The red, in particular, was one of many options provided in the guidelines. But let's remember: Guidelines are so named to provide direction and encourage consistent application. They are not named rules. If one did not like a particular color in the palette, they certainly had the option to choose another one of the primary or one of the secondary or tertiary-level colors not mentioned in Ms. Gainor's essay.

    We had the opportunity to work with Ms. Gainor for a short period of time after the identity's launch and she never once voiced her concerns about color directly to us. Though she was very good at criticizing and diminishing our work in meetings enough to end what was previously a great collaborative relationship with OWP/P.

    Second, regarding Ms. Gainor's "side note": Her admonition to studio designers to take the design team into consideration when developing brand guidelines seems directed at ours in particular for OWP/P. Our response is that we did. We worked very closely with the in-house team prior to the arrival of Ms. Gainor. What she didn't realize was that the principals at the time felt that the in-house design team needed some focus and a lot of guidance and they asked specifically for guidelines that would attempt to reign-in some designers' desire to go renegade and over-embellish. It was a real problem there.

    I also take issue with the insinuation, by default considering her example, that our guidelines were inflexible, unaffecting, and uninformative. The flexibility Ms. Gainor was seeking was the flexibility the principals and in-house design department heads asked us specifically to reign-in. Her frustration was misdirected at us; her problem did not lie within the guidelines, but in fact, with her superiors. As well, the inspirational content she seemingly sought from the guidelines was there all along. Again, perhaps her frustration in this area was misdirected at our guidelines. This is not to claim that our guidelines were in any way flawless, but to hold them up as an example of "this is why outside studios can't be trusted by in-house designers" is dubious.

    [Content removed by AIGA editor]

  7. link to this comment by Kiran Max Weber Sun Aug 30, 2009

    Thanks for sharing your side of the story (the true one) Sally.

  8. link to this comment by Jon Akland Tue Sep 01, 2009

    I think you may be missing the point of the article, Sally. I really don't think it was meant as an attack on your firm.
    However, I certainly respect the fact that all the work that graphics standards (and similar projects) require and all the opportunities they provide can become invisible to those arriving after the process is complete -- particularly if they wish they'd had the opportunity to do the work in the first place.
    As an in-house designer struggling to keep the good work in-house (and occasionally succeeding), I've experienced that situation from both sides.

  9. link to this comment by cynicdesign Sat Sep 19, 2009

    Interesting to read a bio of a successful designer.

    Trust is a great subject for a post, wish you had told a little more about how you actually built trust.

    Nothing more frustrating than an ignorant client trying to come in and treat you like a production artist.

    Cheers,
    cd

  10. link to this comment by Christopher Chapman Wed Sep 30, 2009

    I work in a fortune 100 co. and fighting for design happens often with business partners. At work I try to gain trust through give and take in small ideas. When I ask for trust and deliver I build up "social chips" that I can cash in on big decisions later.

    Feel free to follow me on twitter at http://twitter.com/ChapmanCatalyst

    I want to hear more about everyones thoughts on creativity and design process.

    Christopher

Add a Comment

AIGA encourages thoughtful, responsible discourse. Please add comments judiciously, and refrain from maligning any individual, institution or body of work.
Read our policy on commenting.