When Designers Stopped Submitting and Started Presenting

Corporate identity design is one of the most complex fields in the design industry. It’s a multidisciplinary subject that includes various fields like design, business, marketing, philosophy, psychology, human behavior, science, history, humanities, world cultures, politics, semiotics, linguistics, among many others. Each corporate identity design project demands extensive research, ideation, and iterations until the designer discovers the right solution for a corporation. Traditionally, corporate identity designers have served as strategic partners, deeply involved in the brand-building process. However, a troubling trend has emerged in recent years: designers have shifted from being decision-makers and partners to becoming mere order-takers. Rather than providing solutions, they now present multiple options for clients to choose from. This shift reflects a deeper issue—the erosion of design leadership and the rise of a shortcut culture within the industry.

Imagine a patient visiting a doctor who says, "I have three treatment options for your condition; you choose which one you want." The patient might respond, "Well, doctor, I’m not a medical professional. Please, you tell me what’s best." Similarly, business decision-makers are not design professionals. They have already made a difficult decision in selecting a designer to solve their problem. Now, it’s the designer’s job to prescribe the right solution. Providing options doesn’t make any sense at all. Advocates of this approach argue that it’s about being flexible and catering to client preferences. But in reality, it’s a shortcut designed to avoid responsibility, accountability, and difficult conversations with clients. It shifts the burden of decision-making onto the client. The designer can sidestep accountability by allowing the client to choose, effectively saying, "You decide, and if it doesn’t work, it’s not my fault." This approach not only diminishes the designer’s role but also often leads to diluted design solutions, as the focus shifts from finding the best possible solution to merely satisfying client preferences.

On the other hand, when a designer provides a single, well-thought-out solution, they make a statement: "This is the best possible outcome based on my expertise and understanding of your brand." However, with that comes the risk of being wrong and the potential for the solution to fail to meet the client’s expectations. This requires the designer to stand by their work, defend it, and be accountable for its success or failure.

Legendary designer Paul Rand strongly believed in the designer's role as an expert and decision-maker. Whenever he took on a project, he provided a single solution—no options, no variations. Whether the client accepted it or not, they still had to pay Rand for his work because he had fulfilled his role as the expert. He understood that his job was to provide the best solution, not a menu of possibilities. When Steve Jobs approached Rand to design a logo for his new company, NeXT, he asked if Rand could come up with some options for the logo design. Rand responded, "No! I will solve your problem for you, and you will pay me. And you don’t have to use the solution. If you want options, go talk to other people. But I’ll solve your problem for you the best way I know how, and whether you use it or not, that’s up to you—you are the client. But you pay me."

Rand’s approach is completely different from the practices of many designers today. By submitting one solution, he reinforced his role as a leader in the design process. He took full responsibility for the outcome, and as a result, his designs were often more cohesive, impactful, and aligned with the company’s brand strategy. Rand’s legacy is a powerful reminder that design is not about pleasing the client; it’s about making the right choice for the client.

The shift from submitting solutions to presenting options did not happen overnight; it was a gradual process. The root cause of this shift is the lack of accountability in the design industry. In medicine, despite the rise of self-diagnosing patients, the profession maintains its integrity because doctors are still held accountable for their prescriptions. A doctor's license can be revoked for malpractice, which acts as a safeguard against the commodification of healthcare. On the other hand, the design profession does not have such formal accountability. Without the fear of losing a license or facing professional consequences, designers have drifted away from their role as advisors and decision-makers to mere order-takers who simply do whatever the client asks. Advertising agencies took advantage of this lack of accountability and started offering identity design services. The shortcut of providing options and satisfying client preferences, once confined to agencies lacking specialized identity design expertise, has now spread to design freelancers and studios. This shift has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the quality of design work but also for the perception of designers as professionals.

The shift in client psychology has further exacerbated the problem. In an era of instant gratification, many clients seek quick solutions to complex problems. The design profession, once seen as a strategic and thoughtful process, is now often viewed as a commodity—a service that can be bought, tweaked, and customized to fit immediate desires. This mindset has led clients to fall into the trap of quick fixes, which may satisfy their short-term goals but ultimately harm their brand in the long run. Instead of trusting the expertise of designers, clients may become overly involved in the decision-making process, asking for multiple options and revisions until they find something that simply 'feels right' rather than something that strategically supports their brand. Designers, eager to please and perhaps afraid of losing business, started offering options and multiple revisions as a way to keep clients happy.

To reclaim their rightful role as leaders in the branding process, designers must move away from presenting options and return to submitting solutions. This doesn’t mean ignoring client input or being inflexible; it means asserting your expertise and taking full responsibility for the design solution you provide. As Sujata Keshavan famously said, "Don’t aim merely to satisfy your clients’ standards, which may not be that difficult. Set your own standards." To set your own standards is to acknowledge the profound responsibility that comes with being a designer. Every decision you make reflects your commitment to the craft, the brand, and those who engage with the brand.