As seems to be customary for me now, I thought I’d write down my thoughts on 2024…following my ‘thoughts on ‘22’ and ‘thoughts on ‘23’ articles. I hadn’t meant for this to be a recurring thing a la ‘Schott’s Almanac’ but there you go.
To make it more interesting this year, I decided to ping a WhatsApp message off to about 40 peers to get their views on the past year. I asked “What would be your Top 3 topics of note that best sum up the year we’ve had…good or bad?” About 50% of them pinged me back with their versions of an answer. Some of them were understandably predictable but most provided an interesting take on their own ‘design lane’, be it agency, business ownership, freelance, in-house, client side or otherwise. It should be said that all of the people canvassed are either designers (of some form or another) or responsible for design.
I guess if I wanted to do this properly, I’d also seek input from people outwith the design industry, but hey ho. This isn’t a dissertation. It’s just mind dribble.
I won’t list everything that was shared as some of it is either too specific to the individual or a bit niche (no disrespect to the individuals, but some felt a little outside the major themes). My main objective was to get a sense of the common trends and concerns prevailing throughout the design industry that occupied our collective minds in 2024. Most of my articles are written in a single sitting (usually with an accompanying glass of decent red), but this one has taken me about 4 or 5 sittings to complete, as I’ve wanted to do everyone’s input justice. I am very grateful for everyone’s thoughts and time taken to send them to me.
So, here we go…someone of these are obviously closely linked but warrant a section of their own. There’s no real order. If you feel the need to read them in a different order, be my guest!
1. AI.
Let’s just get this out of the way. Pretty much everyone cited AI as a big topic for 2024, understandably – I notice I’ve mentioned it twice in each of my previous ‘thoughts on’ articles. However, rather than unbridled advocacy or cautious experimentation or a flat denial of it’s relevance, most seem to accept that AI needs to find a place and relevance in what they do and how they do it. It’s more a case of HOW than IF. Some compare it to the birth and adoption of the internet …for those of you old enough to remember…
Our lives are permeated by AI enabled products and services now. Microsoft has co-pilot. ChatGPT is used by pretty much anyone writing anything (although denial still prevails). Apple iPhone ads lead with ‘Apple Intelligence’ to help you take better photos and convince your boss that you are working (awful ad BTW).
I think everyone in design has ‘had a play’ now. We all know what Vizcom, MidJourney and Krea can do and how it can fit with our ‘workflow’. We all talk the talk with clients and either pretend to be experts or staunchly refuse to let our process be contaminated by it. It seems now is the time to really work out where it fits, what time it can save us, what we can legitimately charge for and how many subscriptions we can justify. There are enough ‘evangelicals’ out there to learn from. Costs are negligible. I actually think it might be something the new incoming generation of graduate designers could use as leverage for differentiation in a groaning jobs market.
Like any new tools, it soon becomes clear when people have spent some time and mastered it versus those that dabble and pretend to know what they are doing. Someone who knows how to surface in 3D CAD can spot a shonky model a mile away. The same is starting to be true of AI output, but the pace of improvement is genuinely alarming.
I’ve spoken to lots of people who are starting to find really useful ways to integrate AI into their process, and not necessarily in the most obvious ways. It’s not all about visual magic. Much of it is process efficiencies. That’s the interesting bit I think.
As many of you will attest, I could easily write a whole article on this. I won’t…don’t worry. Needless to say, every single response I received back from my canvassed peers mentioned AI as either the primary topic or the most obvious.
2. The jobs market (and squiggly career paths).
You’d have to have been hiding under a rock to not notice the cataclysmic level of job losses in the design industry this past year. Some were attritional and kept under the radar whilst others were nationally newsworthy and in the thousands. Regardless of how businesses dealt with redundancies or coped with business downturn is subjective but the net effect has been a huge surge of people looking for new roles in an industry unable to provide. This has had a number of different impacts.
There will inevitably be a ‘Dysonification’ of a fair number of businesses as a result of folk being swept up and put in positions of influence. This has happened to a number of businesses in and around the Bristol and Bath areas (and further afield I’m seeing) from prior Dyson exoduses and I suspect will continue for some time. It’s not for me to say whether this is a good or bad thing. It’s just a thing.
It’s also resulted in many reconsidering their career path and exploring retraining or pivoting to enter a parallel discipline. Some have described it as the ‘squiggly career path’ and how beneficial it can be to avoid becoming overly specialised as time moves on.
There are also plenty of people deciding to shun traditional ‘employment’ per se in larger numbers. Some of it is the fallout from COVID. Some of it is the knee jerk temperamentality of home working and the recent move from more businesses to insist on in-person studio attendance now. Some of it is the desire to balance family life (and horrid costs of childcare) with more independence. Who knows the exact combination of reasons. I’m sure it’s very different for everyone.
Unfortunately, many entering this realm of self employment have zero experience of getting work from clients (or finding them in the first place) so tend to lean into redundancy payoffs to fund themselves initially only to slowly realise it’s bloody hard work, and success is almost entirely unrelated to your ability to do the work. This saturates the market, drives down ‘value’ and makes the whole system creak. I don’t blame people for doing this but it doesn’t help the market landscape one bit. Again, a topic for greater exploration maybe.
All I know is that the ‘bounce back’ that typically happens doesn’t seem to be appearing anytime soon. There will still be lots of people desperately looking for design work for a long time to come….unfortunately.
3. Jaguargate.
A blip in recent months but one that can’t be ignored. It became less about what Jaguar were actually doing and said way more about the character of the design industry and the nature of subjective criticism, often based on little or no need for information.
I felt embarrassed to be part of the design ‘community’ (on this I have other views) as the work was torn to shreds to simply bloat shallow egos or garner superficial likes. It was the metaphorical equivalent of watching a kid get bullied in the playground by 4 lumbering oafs with a smattering of brain cells between them and watching idly by.
More embarrassing was the speed by which people made sweeping and broadly misjudged assumptions. They didn’t trust the calibre of the design thinking. They doubted the credentials of their peers. They figured it had been a flight of whimsy to which they needed to fly to the rescue.
Ridiculous offers to ‘correct the errors’ or ‘here’s what Jaguar should have done’.
If it wasn’t so damaging it might have been funny.
Some have suggested that this exercise has demonstrated the ‘power of design’ by getting the wider public to talk about a design issue. Whilst I can just about see their point, I think it says more about the vacuousness of design opinion and the lack of belief in our own industry. We appeared to be less a pride of powerful lions – sticking up for each other – but a pack of double crossing crazed hyenas, preying and feeding on self mutilated carrion.
It didn’t look, feel or sound good at all.
4. Identity crisis.
There’s lots going on to contribute to design’s apparent loss of importance in the business conversation – or at least the perception of that fact.
Some of it is the sheer number of job losses, resulting in those that remain defaulting to more of a ‘response service’ than one that might normally be more confidently provocative. Insecurity drives adherence and the cultural nervousness around design as a career is understandably making people jittery and less likely to throw rocks at senior business leaders who they think might be making the wrong decisions. Design has lost its swagger and confidence a little.
Some have talked of an erosion in expertise. A nagging feeling that design is being ‘demoted’ somewhat. From a ‘seat at the table’ to ‘an implementer of ideas’. It’s subtle and not universal by all means, but many have noted this shift as something to keep an eye on.
With huge budget cuts, comes greater pressures on internal stakeholders to deliver more with less. Clients normally able to commission larger swathes of design led exploration are being asked to internalise this and only really use external design resource when absolutely necessary and then only in budget friendly ways. This isn’t about external designers being pushed…it comes from a domino crush from within. KPI’s and accountability are getting more fierce and demanding for those behind the PO wall, leading to reluctance and a not insignificant sense of fear for their own jobs.
The Jaguar thing didn’t help either. Tearing lumps off each other in front of the business community does nothing to ease the opinion that design is fickle and tempestuous. If we can’t stick up for each other, why should we expect others to stick up for us?
5. Political paralysis.
There’s no doubt that the recent elections – most notably in the UK and the US – have resulted in a sense of caution. Caution manifested as a distinct lack of spending, and in turn some cost cutting, which inevitably affects the font end and fuzzy parts of industry, where quantifiability and measurability are scant. Big corporates make layoffs and cut ‘innovation’ spend (and in many cases lop it off altogether), which trickles down through the design strata with cataclysmic impacts on the wider industry.
Last year started with ambiguity around ‘who’ might next get into power, and ended with decisions related to who is now in power, with reasoning seemingly to suit whatever strategy they had previously concocted. Whilst the UK has had some months of ‘stable’ governance (whether you agree with the decisions or not), the US is about to enter a period of tariffs, bluster, ego and machismo, and only time will tell what effect this will have on businesses aiming to straddle international geographic boundaries.
Aside from ‘spending momentum’, many in my network are lamenting a political sense of ‘hesitancy’ than ‘optimism’. Past years have seen great societal strides made in sustainable practices, ethical manufacturing and a sense of morality but recent political posturing has narrowed this view and many now feel that with greater nationalism and protectionism, comes a worrying shift away from ‘a need to do better’. The drum needs to be bigger and banged ever louder to even be heard. Policy making seems to be achingly slow and each COP appears to go backwards (the last one was held in a key oil producing nation FFS!). Not great for an industry already struggling to convince clients to do better with less and re-evaluate innovation practices.
Unfortunately, these factors don’t appear to be improving anytime soon, but it will be interesting to see how the creative industries adapt to greater political divide and narrowing, individualistic views.
6. Title fudginess and the pursuit of seniority.
A significant number of people commented on the muddiness in design role titles. This has always been an issue but seems to have become a much more polarising topic in recent years and made all the more frustrating as the jobs market has been flooded in the last 12 months. Plenty of people not only confused by the description of their own industry (the phrase ‘Product Design’ has done more to confuse than most) but then how they sit or position themselves within a title hierarchy.
It seems to have evolved from a generational need to get quicker and earlier validation of seniority at a younger age. I don’t know if it’s the fault of the generation seeking the titles or that of the businesses affording them such titles, but it is now not uncommon for a senior to be anything from 2 years to 15 years experience. Even if you remove the discipline specific nature of technical complexity from the equation, there still seems to be a huge disparity in expectations, pay, authority and scope.
The abundance of ‘low experience seniors’ has led to a number of consequences.
Far too many seniors lack any leadership or even low-level line management experience, the critical awareness of business operations, the depth of technical understanding or the mentoring capabilities that were once key requirements of such a role. Whilst these didn’t need to be hugely in-depth, there was at least some element of broader empathy and holism beyond the ‘creative delivery’ bit.
Products are failing due to a lack of longer term experience typically brought about by longer serving ‘apprenticeships’ prior to senior responsibilities. Combine this with a desire not to lose face in front of peers and you can have a a bit of a recipe for disaster.
A broader frustration with career progression. If senior is so easily attained and at such an early age, where to next? Principal? Head? Director? Not only do those seeking ‘title bingo’ get frustrated by a slow speed of progression, but those who have earned their stripes the ‘old way’ or done the ‘hard yards’ now see their career steps as hugely undermined and somewhat worthless. The two ends of the sliding scale appear to be getting very further apart.
Which in turn makes it almost impossible for businesses to advertise for a specific role without the need for vast levels of substantiation or validation. Mix that in with an algorithmic approach to job hunting and you are left with a right mess.
For the purposes of explanation, I’ve used ‘senior’ to illustrate the point, but all other titles are equally fraught with fudge.
7. Service pivot (more with less).
There’s absolutely no doubt that there’s less work or business out there, and what work there is, is won on the understanding of greater efficiency. Do more with less…pretty please.
This comes in many forms. The AI thing is a double sided mirror. There is a broad but often misunderstood thought in the minds of the ‘design buying’ populous (mostly ill-informed but some more informed than you’d think) that AI ‘speeds up’ the design process. You could argue that this is true in certain circumstances, depending on what you are offering and what processes you deployed in your creative endeavours (if you read your LinkedIn feeds, you’d be led to believe that AI is the solution to absolutely everything). In that sense, you can absolutely use AI to shave and optimise those aspects of your work in ways that keep the client happy and help you maximise your profitability. The downside is when the two don’t align and the expectations of what AI ‘can do’ and how you deliver are not symbiotic. You end up in a reassurance arm wrestle with compromise being the winner.
Many are citing that tighter budgets means a (probably) overdue look at internal processes. ‘It’s the way we’ve always done it’ doesn’t cut it anymore. The more astute service providers are redefining their processes to suit a more agile (genuinely agile, not just in words alone) approach and delivery framework. More open conversations with the client about expectations. Maybe more focus on getting the brief right in the first place to avoid that inevitable ‘bloat’ that comes from ambiguity and vagueness.
But this doesn’t limit itself to agency offers. In house teams are mentioning the need to be ever more ‘optimal’ in delivering against inter-team projects. The reputation of design seems to be on the line moreso than it ever was, so the need to deliver ‘value’ in a way that doesn’t sound smug, aloof or lacking commercial relatability is paramount. I’d almost say that being an in-house designer might actually be harder right now, despite the apparent ‘security’ than many cite.
One conversation I had was with someone who is fighting tooth and nail to establish themselves as an ‘intrapreneur’. Someone who is attempting to merge traditionally separate roles within an ‘in house’ structure to demonstrably deliver value on multiple levels…creatively, commercially, managerially and in a way that pushes the project forward. Almost a self styled stakeholder who also happens to deliver. Entrepreneurialism is constantly talked about within larger organisations, and the need to embody its nimble agility, but such behemoths are reluctant to change, so people within are taking it upon themselves to try and make that change. All credit to them. It must be soul destroying!
I’m also hearing that many in house teams who might normally seek outside support from agencies are being tasked to do more of the work themselves. At least in terms of ensuring the data and the insights are rock solid before engaging. Making sure the people you are targeting are the right people (where the term ‘right’ is open to interpretation). In the ‘olden days’ agencies would typically have pitched and won the work to ‘gather consumer insight’ and act upon it, but now the onus is on the in house team to define this and make sure its tight. Teams are doing less ‘explorative’ design work which they might typically test with consumers, and spending more time looking at sustainability technology strategies or inclusivity frameworks or process efficiencies. All activities that aim to limit external spend and empower internal knowledge. Some have called it ‘internal reshoring’. Can’t blame them I guess. Makes a lot of sense.
Back in agency land, I’ve also heard of freelancers pooling resources (nothing new here but interesting that it’s back in fashion/need), agencies finding new revenue streams (see later section on profitability) or – rather unfortunately – agencies scaling right back to cut costs and deliver ‘lean’ and making a bit of a deal of ‘look…you get to work directly with the business owners!’. The latter is fine (albeit painful) if you expect things to ‘return to normal’ but I’m not so sure it will.
8. Short term-ism.
One of the key themes coming through many of the comments is the concern that much of design activity feels ‘short term’. And short term in a variety of different ways.
Some is the need to focus on short term gains over long term ambitions. The need to make something that will ‘definitely sell’ and usually based on something that has sold well before (see the next section for more evidence of this). Some of it is the reduction in consumer research and ‘understanding’ so it makes sense to ‘do something with the knowledge we have’. Some of it is the budgetary pressure to get stuff done quicker so projects inevitably become less ambitious and more about ‘getting to market’.
Many have lamented the lack of meaningful exploration of new ideas. And this worryingly extends into sustainability strategies. It’s hard to do things sustainably (at least harder than the way things have always been done) because it typically involves new materials, new suppliers, new processes, new approaches, systematic thinking or digging for data to qualify reasoning. Not that this should be an excuse not to do it, but it a world of ‘there’s no money for that’, even the smallest extra bit of endeavour in a seemingly ‘alternative’ direction is crushed.
All of this doesn’t help the general morale of the design folk who want to do better and fly further. It also does nothing to prevent the slow erosion of design’s place in the strategic decision making arena. We’ve spent decades trying to work our way into the corporate viewfinder, to try and get a C-title and sit in the C-suite (which I always imagine has far too much leather and soft lighting), and yet it feels like we are being ignored again.
It certainly feels like the world is tipping towards ‘giving less of a shit’ about this sort of stuff, despite every single thing pointing to it needing to happen. A certain orange combover fleshsack, has recently removed the US from the Paris accord and is actively destroying any activities looking to address climate change or more ethical approaches to everyday life. It just means that people who do give a shit have to shout louder and bang harder than ever before. Sad but true.
9. Innovation stagnation.
A couple of interesting points were made about the ‘safety’ of apparent innovation of late. Many made reference to movie releases and how most were sequels, remakes, live action versions or relatively simple extensions of what has come before. Data rules the roost it seems. Why do something new when you can reboot something you know will make money and appeal to a guaranteed slice of the populous?
In contrast, I listened to a cultural podcast recently that talked about the resurgence of indie films and original storytelling forthcoming in 2025, so my hope is that the sense of stagnation is a lag from a few years ago, rather than something we are feeling right now. Fingers crossed.
10. Morale sink.
I’ve heard of countless people who have unceremoniously said “Fuck it!” to design in the last year. People who have given their souls to the profession but who have been left to struggle or have found that the industry gives them nothing in return. Unless you are a ‘figurehead’, design pay is notoriously poor, hours are intolerable and the right kind of work is like rocking horse shit….impossible to find.
It could be the ‘decision lag’ of COVID or the rise in living costs or the move by many business leaders to get people back into the studio again 5 days a week…. or a thousand different other things, but far too many people with far too much talent are choosing to depart and do something on their own terms. A salmon farm in Montana. Country estate management. Animal husbandry. Physiotherapist. People for whom design has failed. By that I mean the industry has failed them. And not for want of trying. In truth, I don’t blame them.
And there are those who should be snapped up and plugged into well oiled teams. People with unbridled, natural, raw talent who can deliver lightning in a bottle. But they either don’t fit the corporate ‘algorithm’ or are too ‘expensive’ for the struggling agencies. The unfortunate souls that fall through the industrial cracks and wonder what they did wrong. You didn’t do anything wrong. You were done wrong.
Whatever the reasons, design is haemorrhaging talent, and seemingly promoting average-ness. I see far too many incorrigibly talentless people who dance the corporate dance of shame, working their way up the ‘design credibility ladder’, spouting ‘advice’ to those in the cheap seats. People for whom tying shoelaces is a struggle, being given podia to espouse their ‘spectacular career path’ and ‘secrets of success’. I hope the coming year sees a change in direction, otherwise things are just going to get worse. A proverbial race to the bottom I fear.
11. Re-thinking profitability.
I’ve noticed a distinct shift in recent months from a few agencies and ‘creative’ providers. There seems to be an understanding that we can’t simply wait for ‘normality’ to resume and clients to be given those big pots of cash again. It’s simply not going to happen. A bit like expecting your kids to remain the same as they grow up and leave home. Much of it is familiar but the way you approach the situation needs to change.
This is true for profitability and ‘creative service provision’. Quite a few people I canvassed have already started looking at alternative ways to apply their creativity, whether its things like greater product ownership or shared risk or more targeted specialisms.
A lovely chap recently bought me ‘Legacy’ by James Kerr (Cheers Jamie!), which talks about what business and team development can learn from the winning mentalities and approaches employed by the All Blacks (New Zealand’s multi World Cup winning, rugby Union team…if you have been hiding under a rock). I’m about 60% of the way through it so far, but one chapter that resonated in these trying times was one called ‘Go for the gap’. The trust in the rest of the team to allow individuals to spot opportunities and go for it if the timings and circumstances allow.
Process, rigour and set pieces are all well and good, but if the landscape simply doesn’t fit these, then you are simply repeatedly running into a brick wall. You need to seek the opportunities that current circumstances permit. Trust your wider creative powers and just ‘go for the gap’.
I can see people doing this overtly and covertly. Whether it’s pivoting to use AI, changing their lexicon to suit the times, ditching age old systems that are creaking or embracing new techniques, there’s a sense that evolution is happening and the dire financial landscape is necessitating this at speed.
12. Design education.
Plenty of people canvassed, lamented the rather broken link between industry and education. Be it the wrong skills, too many average graduates being released into the wild, the wrong course titles, not enough practical, real world skills or the lack of ‘critical thinking’…much of this won’t be new to the people reading this.
On the flip side of the coin, students and graduates are facing fewer placement opportunities as businesses cut costs, a hugely reduced job market with fierce competition, the devaluing of design degrees, and a melée of confusion when it comes to defining who you are and what you can offer.
Many on both sides suggested that they probably wouldn’t recommend anyone study design if they were to start again. A rather bleak statement for where the industry currently sits in the value chain. Reassuringly though, I’ve seen that genuinely talented grads are still getting hired, despite the foreboding weather. Also, interestingly, I’ve seen lots of design grads applying for and securing jobs that are entirely unrelated to ‘practising’ design per se, but serve the wider innovation process. Project management, client services, product marketing…that sort of thing. Going for the gap I guess.
There’s oodles of stuff on design education doing the rounds, so I’ll keep this point short…ish.
This has become an absolute beast and if you’ve got this far, give yourself a big pat on the back! I’ve written this as comprehensively as I can, given my tendency to weave my own opinions and thoughts into those of others, and done my best to represent as many of the topics I was sent.
I wanted to end the article with a note of positivity as I’m very aware that 2024 was a bag full of shit for most of us, and reading this back, it strikes a fairly negative tone.
If I pool together the ‘comments of positivity’ from the feedback, I’d say that despite a commercially tumultuous year, many of you are still broadly optimistic about the direction for travel for ‘design’ as a whole. As with the opening topic, most have reconciled AI as a friend rather than foe and have found ways to work with it, rather than decry it and run away screaming.
Craft seems to be making a comeback. Not necessarily in the ‘shaving bits of wood with a chisel’ sense, but more a kickback to AI and a heavy lean into the notion that much of the design process is about thinking, iterating, building and considering. Slow, contemplative thought leading to solid, relevant solutions (using whatever tools you deem fit to use). The idea that genuine creativity comes not from a thousand derivative options from which you simply ‘pick’ the best (by ‘best’ read ‘favourite’ which in itself is an issue), but trust in an individual ability to cognitively crunch the issues in their noggin and carefully evolve a synaptic skitter into something real, absolute and brilliant. Craft can’t exist alone, but harnessed and left to do its thing in partnership with modern tools and processes, is something business needs to encourage.
Knowledge of sustainable practices and inclusivity appear to be on the rise and those in the know are actively sharing this knowledge with those who don’t in an act of ‘design altruism’. That shouldn’t go unnoticed, and people should actively credit anyone who contributes indirectly to design success in this field. Issues such as inclusivity and morality in design are also being advocated by many. Unfortunately, some rather opportunistic creative service providers are jumping on passing bandwagons and inferring expertise where clearly none actually exists, but on the whole it feels like the wider design ‘community’ is feeling like it needs to be something we don’t all lose sight of, even if there’s no money in it. It’s too important to ignore. Many of these topics have moved from ‘buzzword’ status to ‘guiding principles’ and I applaud those who clearly spend much of their time advocating this stuff and pulling the rest of the industry into their orbit….and along screaming in many cases.
Many mentioned the notion of a design ‘community’. Indeed, I’ve used the term a few times myself in this encyclopaedic article! Whilst I completely understand where this sentiment comes from, as a somewhat greyer, curmudgeonly fella, I read this stuff with a note of caution. Many of you reading this will know all too well that I have a sceptical view of contrived community, moreso as I’ve seen it attempted many times over the 30 years I’ve been swimming in this pond. I always leave with a sense that it tends to only serve one master and not the people looking to it. I’m certainly aware of a wider International sense of ‘creative community’ in the way that information is shared, incoming talent is supported, opportunities are promoted and business struggles are understood, so for that I am grateful and would urge everyone to continue. Community shouldn’t be a club. It should be a verb….if you get my drift. Community by action, not simply by attendance. Stick together. Support each other. Quietly. Robustly. Honourably.
Despite a lack of commercial funding, many in the design community are looking to try and solve knotty problems under their own steam. Almost to prove a point and to stick two fingers up at those that say there isn’t a place for it. This extends to education and the support of burgeoning young creative talent. Almost as if the established mechanisms to deliver this stuff isn’t doing its job, then circumvent it and do it yourself.
That seems to be the prevailing sentiment from 2024. Don’t rely on the establishment to support you. If you want to do something, you have do bloody well do it yourself.
Whether that’s to survive or to thrive or to demonstrate value, it’s down to individuals. I would say that most of us are happy to say goodbye to 2024. There was a great deal to have grievance with. I am hopeful for 2025, but many of the topics I’ve discussed are still prevalent and at risk of scuppering this year to come. My overwhelming hope is that things simply settle. Whether they settle into a recognisable form, or one that we need to adapt and find new ways to describe, it almost doesn’t matter. Settling infers a bit more stability, which I think we could all do with a bit more of.
My fingers hurt.
TTFN.
