How LEGO Revived Its Brand
Capital of Nasty, an Electronic Magazine - ISSN 1482-0471
Tuesday, July 27, 2010 at 20:00 (4050/46)
LEGO revived its company not by looking at more ways to expand its products, but by actually removing some design freedoms from its products creators. And the idea actually worked.
From the article in Bloomberg Businessweek by Jay Greene:
It may sound counterintuitive, but LEGO found that design -- at least within its walls -- thrives with some constraints. That might send chills up the spines of some in the design world. The idea of fencing in designers, forcing them to play in a confined space, runs counter to the notion that design needs to be set free. But the component limits gave designers just enough direction to come up with some of the company's most successful products to date. "If you put guiding principles in place, you empower people to make the right decision," says Smith-Meyerr, who runs LEGO's New Business Group.
You may also be interested in:
Century of the Child: MoMA's Exhibit Looks at Childhood as a Means for Modern Design Thinking
Computers, Starships and 8-Miles of Railroad Track: The Things People Build with Minecraft
Man-Eater: a Game to Be Played Between Transit Stops
LEPOS: The Primary Invasion - Diego Bergia's Book Launch & Show, November 11th
Green Army Men as Casualties of War
Computers, Starships and 8-Miles of Railroad Track: The Things People Build with Minecraft
Man-Eater: a Game to Be Played Between Transit Stops
LEPOS: The Primary Invasion - Diego Bergia's Book Launch & Show, November 11th
Green Army Men as Casualties of War
Please enter your comment below. Hit Return twice (leaving a completely blank line) between paragraphs.
Use [b] for bold [/b] and [i] for italic [/i]. All other HTML commands will be stripped.
Your comment is (almost) immediately placed online as soon as you hit 'Post'.
Specifying an email address is optional. In the interests of your own privacy, CoN discourages you from doing so. Further, think twice about revealing any other personal information including telephone number, real name, exact address or blood type.
...I agree. Design is about combining form and function in a pleasing way aesthetically, while first and foremost attaining a specified goal.
If the goal is to sell to a certain audience, you have to design for that audience. You leave your own tastes out of it.
Too many "designers" are actually trying to be artists. Art for art's sake is a fairly new idea as it is, people like Rembrandt and his predecessors were more like designers than artists; working to commission and applying craftmanship to deliver to specs.
But I have no problen with artists creating art for art's sake.
But if you want to "do design", then design. Learn to create, be creative, and still work to spec.
I'm with Lego on this one. Some can't handle limitations (usually because it exposes serious lack of skill.) others thrive on them.
What's more creative? Taking what you are handed and making something great, or making something great but only when given free reign so you can stay inside your skillset?
Most won't admit it, but honestly, how many artists do you know who ever stray really far from their favourite style, subjects, etc.?
Designers just get a job to do, and if they don't have the skill, they'd better learn fast.
I love art. Don't get me wrong. But art and design are not the same thing, and people who confuse the two have no place in either business. I've seen too much really bad design done by people trained as artists, and too much really bad design done by designers trying to be artists.