Unit Verse

Beyond Comp Review: Two designs enter. One leaves.

• by Nathan Ford 2 years ago
• 2 Comments

In my previous experience, I had always heard “Marketing execs/business owners are Type A Personalities, so they like to see as many options as possible…” This modus operandi kept me overworking conceptual failures, over-thinking muddled compositions, and mired in revisions. I could see that this system was broken, though I wasn’t sure of how it could be done better.

Once I became an official Unitard, Andy and Angela introduced me to their two comp approach. As Andy puts it: “We try to give two intelligent design directions, because after that we’re just finding new ways to decorate the information”. This was compelling, but it wasn’t until I adopted this practice myself, that I fully understood the benefits.

Create Your Own Master Blaster

We try to give two intelligent design directions, because after that we’re just finding new ways to decorate the information

If you don’t know who Master Blaster is, its okay: I don’t expect everyone to share my love of post-apocalyptic action films co-starring Tina Turner. For those uniformed readers, let me summarize: Master Blaster is actually two characters: one highly-intelligent little person strapped to the back of dim-witted ogre of a man. Where one is weak, the other is strong.

The two design approach works in much the same way, only instead of strengths and weaknesses, it is better to think of emphasis. Ideally, we present one design that emphasizes a path to solving one set of prioritized goals (from the strategy brief), and another design that represents a different hierarchy of priorities. There are only so many appropriate ways to reconfigure hierarchy (again, “appropriateness” is based on the strategy brief), therefore two designs are usually plenty.

The Designer is Not the Executioner

At this point, we take an objective stance as designers, and allow the client to choose what best suits their needs. If we have been successful, all of the design considerations will have been handled and only the client can decide, now, which direction to take. We may have preferences, but are careful not to betray them.

Putting such a strategic choice in the client’s hands can be scary, and I believe that is why designers sometimes overcompensate with too many options. But if we have already been judicious in our decision making, we should be confident in proceeding with either direction.

By reducing the options, we also minimize the tyranny of choice, allowing for swifter decision making on the client’s side, and reducing overall anxiety levels in the whole process. This streamlining puts the client more at ease, and makes them more apt to trust your decision making… meaning they may just bite on that crazy, exciting new concept, rather than just going with what they feel safe with.

Now, we Unitards realize this may not work in every design situation. For example, our logo work generates quite a few more options. When designing and developing websites, though, which need to accomplish multiple goals for our clients, while simultaneously conveying a strong brand message, the two comp process has excelled without much compromise.