Recently both Jeff and I were asked to contribute to an article in this month’s How Magazine about working on projects that conflict with your personal ethics. Although I was just ever-so-slightly misunderstood by the writer who summarized that my “primary motivation is making money”, says article, I was thrilled to contribute. Now do not get me wrong, I like many other business people am excited by a healthy margin, but for crying in the night it is not my motivation, let alone my “primary” one.  If that were the case wouldn’t I be dealing in hedge funds or commodities or something like that?  But hell, how often do you get asked to contribute to such a great magazine, and maybe even more valuable to me, I now get to complain about being misrepresented (the italics represent a sort of douche bag tone in my voice).  So that’s something too.

Thankfully for the internet I have the luxury of publishing what was sent to them as my true views on the subject, and thankfully for my not-so-very-prolific-blogging-career, I have an article “in the can”.  So here goes:

Quite simply put, it is the designer’s job to visually convey the message they are hired to deliver.  A lot goes into doing that well, and being diametrically opposed to a project’s purpose definitely would not help.  So then even if a designer did try to set their personal beliefs aside in the spirit of “gettin’ the job done,” at what point does that become irresponsible and a disservice to the paying party?  No matter how much you loath the purpose, to me that plain disservice becomes its own isolated case of ‘wrong’ as a business value.

To me I think a number of things go into considering an assignment, and certainly personal morals and values are not the least of which that would play a part of that filter.  Obviously the more typical filters for me as the CEO are, will it enhance our brand, is it financially responsible, will it burn out the team, do we like the idea, etc…Normally the project’s nature is much more innocuous then offensive to any set of morals.  You know, selling a backpack, an mp3 player, a piece of software, and so on.

Being of the more independent mind set, I would provoke any designer, or anyone else for that matter, to simply turn down what they want to turn down for opposing any personal moral or value.  Certainly freelancers have that liberty, and as an employer I give my team that same liberty.  Now sometimes we disagree on whether a project is good for the company, and we listen to those opinions as well.

Earlier on in our history we did get approached to do a couple projects that did in fact oppose my personal beliefs.  I think I’d prefer to not get into the nitty gritty as to what and why, but they started somewhat harmless.  We took the projects, and as they progressed through development, the projects became more and more opposing.  At first I simply personally backed-off from offering my help.  One of which we finished, although I would argue not our best project ever (serving my earlier point), and the other we resigned.  From those experiences I know now to stay away from projects I do not believe in.  But again, that encompasses much more then morals and values these days.

2009 had been a challenging year for all of us.  And in a year that I would of expected to take any paying project, we have turned down more then we ever have.  That does not mean every project is a party, but it does mean to choose whether or not to accept it through some sort of filter that you (either as an independent or agency) have defined so that you, your team, your portfolio, or your bottom line is served, and then in turn the client is best served.

Amen!

SODA's Click 2009 - 10/01/2009

This past thursday (10/1/09) our creative directors, Jeff Toll and Demetre Agres and I had the pleasure of attending the Click 2009 SODA event at the Art Directors Club in NYC.  There we got to hear from amazing boutiques like Unit9 (particularly loved them), Syrup, and Poke, as well as from some of the agency juggernauts like Goodby, CP+B, JWT, and Ogilvy, all introduced and hosted by the after-hearing-him-talk-I-truly-get-why-he’s-such-a-likable-force-in-the-industry Michael Lebowitz (which I am pretty sure I learned is “lEbowitz, not lEEBowitz) from the infamous Big Spaceship.

The topic and discussion points varied from more granular subjects like “Branding with numbers” (which I found surprisingly intriguing) to more general monsters like “What is the future of entertainment”.

First off I have to say what a pleasure it is to hear from such talent in one room, on one day, and in person.  I mean Jason Zada, Lebowitz, and Mike Geiger to name a few…truly a pleasure.

Of all the nuggets of wisdom I can take away from the discussions, what is interesting to me is that despite agency head-counts, annual billings, specific focus, country of origin, or AOR vs. project-based orientation, we are all facing similar issues; digital agencies finding their autonomy from the traditional ones, an ever-changing set of tools, an even more-changing option of techniques and services we have the option to render should we decide to, and a myriad of ways we can manage the whole damn thing.  But here in-lies the beauty, though facing the same obstacles and issues, the lot of us are choosing completely different approaches to the hurdles, and its working.

We have the luxury of working in an industry that is defining itself each day, and that works for me.  After all, what are we if we are not problem solvers?  At the end of the day we are simply choosing what tool we want to solve the problem with.  So I welcome and embrace the luxury of being able to re-define, re-shape, and re-focus. What fun it is after all.

So after a wonderful day with our peers, and a couple others enjoying an amazing city with good colleagues and friends, I am glad our industry is a kid.  It has many options, and oh so much potential.  Im not sure if its the couple cups of coffee, or the Where the Wild Things Are soundtrack I am listening to as I type this, but I love this kid and want what’s best for him too.  So let’s keep talking.

Art Directors Club NYC

“In 2007, the ‘artist’ Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.

For several days, the ‘artist’ and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful ‘masterpiece’ based on the dog’s agony, until eventually he died.”

Its a sad sad day for animal lovers and pretentious art idiots everywhere. Im not sure what is more sad in fact, that this poor animal died as an art exhibit, or that these human beings justified the action in the first place.

I know I know. Reaction is the point, did it make you feel something then its art, blah blah blah. It a tired, lame, lazy, and disgustingly self important argument for an artist to make, let alone incredibly unintelligent. Yeah no shit watching something die will illicit a feeling.

And it doesnt stop there. The so-called artist has been invited to re-execute his exhibit for the Central American Biennial of 2008. You can help stop this disgusting action by quickly signing a petition below.

SIGN THIS PETITION