« dying like coal, not like dinosaurs | Main | pre-experience design »


What an interesting post. Socially there is a significant distinction between design and advertising.
Design literate individuals will proactively select the items that they wish to have around them in the specific design style that suits and supports their life / lifestyle.
With advertising, due to it's intrusive nature, should the style of the ad not be consistent with an individual's personal taste it's highly likely they will consider it to be a bad ad.
But you could equally argue that, for example, the Cillit Bang ad is an exceptional piece of work. I doubt there is any pretence for it to be seen as a piece of design but so long as the ad helps to send the products off the shelf does it need to be concerned about its artistic merits?
Maybe this is just one case of a bad Ad being very good.
You could also suggest that the type of consumers who care about who designed their kettle are likely to be a small (all be it significant) minority. And trying to advertise everyday products in a language they would respect would create an Ad that simply would not resonate with the target market for the product.
Overall I like to think it fair to suggest that the main point is: we can choose and control the way we interact with design in our lives to a far greater extent than advertising. Which is why advertising will always have the potential to illicit both positive and negative responses from individuals.

As someone who has considered moving to ad from design [planning] more than once I think this is a really interesting point. I'm no expert in advertising so I can only really offer my opinion from a design perspective - is it not just a case of push and pull media? People dislike 99% advertising because it's pushy, unless it's really well thought out (and executed) it wont captivate or motivate. Whereas design is usually chosen, picked or even better, found.

The comments to this entry are closed.