Posted March 31st, 2009 by BillyRaygun in Modern Exhibit Design
Many of us know the phrase, "Form Follows Function." It is a part of the industrial design terminology to describe how a product was inspired - usually from the function of the product itself. Form follows the function, once an innovative and curious phrase, now seems to be overused as much as box frame laminate and fabric construction is used in the exhibit business. It is so 1990's!
Consumer product design begins with an underlying function that is engineered to meet a specific need, or solve a problems that consumers experience daily. To make a long story short, product design has value and can truly make someone else's life easier. It can be measured and as a result can be appreciated.
[more after the break]
Unlike product design that starts with an engineered function that inspires the design of the product itself, Exhibit design is just the opposite! The design of the exhibit defines the function. As exhibit designers, we all start with a blank page. Almost literally, when you consider for example a 50 x 50 island exhibit: all we start with is a blank, 2500 sq ft. empty space on the ground. Therefore, it becomes the creative responsibility of the designer to not only create a good looking design, but one that also has an underlying function: To meet the goals and objectives of the Client. The entire exhibit design process is reverse engineered. The design often ends up dictating the function and then project managers end up figuring out how to make it work. The design of a kiosk, reception counter, conference room, theater, booth lighting and or furniture selection will determine the comfort of your booth visitors. Placement of these components will have a direct influence on how visitors move about within the booth space and interact with the booth staff.
Unfortunately, since much of what we do as Exhibit designers is custom, even system booths are custom designed for the most part and as a result it is difficult to measure and define what is considered to be good Exhibit design. Therefore, the value of exhibit design as a business communication tool is and always will be left to one's personal opinion. The point I am trying to make is this: We need to take a look at how the designer thinks and not just how the booth looks. How can designers take a blank space, create an environment that not only looks good, but also functions well and if at all possible saves the client money.
Exhibit designers nee to learn how to manage the interface between person and product and do it in a way that creates positive experience. If that means eliminating some of the architectural "fluff," so be it. How the designer thinks is an asset for the clients and their ROI. It is not always the pretty rendering that is shown to the client that is most important. Believe me, booth function is way more important than how it looks, because, function has closer ties to the profitability of an exhibit. In all fairness, how a booth looks and functions is definitely a balancing act that is very hard to master. At the end of the day, Exhibit design is a business. If you can find a way to translate the creativity of Exhibit design into dollars and cents, that functions well and looks good, you are on the path to profitability.
I think this is a very good article considering the times. However, I know for a fact that the way the Exhibit business is structured means that many in the industry would not like some of your thoughts! What do exhibit houses do? They design, build and install exhibits. The bigger, more complicated and more expensive the better. Making cheaper exhibits is not high on the priority list. Perhaps using up the budgets of their clients is high up the list. Maybe I am too cynical.
The goal of any well designed, well thought out, well engineered exhibit is not to "save the client money" but rather to "MAKE" the client money. xhibits are an investment in the sales & marketing process, not an expense. To believe that "function follows form" in an exhibit is a little naive. Strong exhibit design is about developing form that achieves the client goals & objectives (function). Exhibits are one of the most powerful branding & sales tools in a marketers universe. It is the responsibility of the exhibit designer (in collaboration with the AE & client) to create the most potent, effective tool possible. It's about building the brand & enabling sales.
Those of us in the Custom Exhibit business are not about making things as expensive as we can or seeing how far we can reach into our clients pocket. It is overly cynical to think so. We are about developing effective tools within our clients resources. In fact one of the key metrics in evaluating our performance is keeping the client in budget.
The effectiveness of an exhibit can be easily measured. Once the client establishes objectives, it is a simple matter to compare exhibit performance to those metrics. It can be sales, traffic, press mentions, branding impressions, leads, message delivery, product introduction, product demos, "buzz", future appointments set, etc......etc. If the client & exhibit house work closely together, it is possible to effectively measure results.
It is correct that effectiveness is more important than architecture. Any architecture should only serve to enhance or enable the client objectives. High level style may be an important component of building a brand. Simple straightforward design may be key to increasing sales on the floor. It is the responsibility of the Exhibit Team to understand the client, their culture, their brand, their product & offerings, their markets & their shows, their resources, their goals, their objectives. Once those elements are understood a truly great, effective design can be created. Creativity must serve the client & the objectives. Once that approach is taken, the form (design) will follow the function (client objectives).
It is great to have this forum to discuss these sorts of topics in an open manner. I appreciate it.
Dear Mr. Colwell,
I can appreciate your comments regardless of how naive you think they are. In today's economy, I'm surprised you are not willing to try and save your clients money. Making them money is only part of the equation.
By saving them money, is that not also making the client money?
If you can save them money, supported with a good creative strategy (that builds interest, and increases traffic) doesn't that increase their profit margin even more? You are missing 50% of the equation.
Your methodology of not wanting to save your clients says it all.
All the above points are valid but let's not forget that an exhibit project can be an emotionally driven purchase. If a particular design doesn't appeal to your client on an emotional level, they'll go elsewhere, regardless of how well planned the space is. This speaks to the idea that function follows form. I know we hate to say that, but it is often the truth. To use the familiar car-purchase example, if the car is practical, but not sexy, you may lose the sale. Yes, architecture should only be used to enhance the design, but it's an important enhancement that could make or break the deal. It's less of a factor in the current economy, but still needs to be considered.
Having been in the sales side of things for an exhibit house that has put out a lot of desings, really good designs, and broke about 30% in the success rate I often wonder what is more important. If the design is a solid one and it is much more cost effective then an all out design, which one will the client choose? I think this is the question of all questions: Is cost more important or is "wowing" the client the thing we should be doing? I honestly think that some clients do pick a more cost effective design over one that would leave a lasting impression.
Am I way off in left field?
Zach
Your point about picking a more cost effective solution is a good one. So is Jason's comment about architecture.
I agree that how creativity breaks down into dollars and cents is critical; more now than ever. Emotional purchasing decisions or ones driven by cost-savings is a very interesting point. I think they are both accurate and what makes this industry interesting, competitive and fast-paced. Neither of them are wrong.
I do believe the science of the above is and always will begin with good design followed by strong sales support. Not sales pressure, but support in where the sales person knows how to sell design, on a cost-effectively and emotionally. Which could be how you measure design; add the cost-savings element with the emotional factor, and you could say it is measurable because the client fell in love with the architecture and you saved them money. But again, because this is a custom business, you can only measure for that one individual. The same emotions might not be the same for another person, or attendee.
Back to Mr. Colwell’s point on not wanting to save clients money, here is a report from the EDPA that you may all find interesting.
"Survey, 87 percent of exhibit suppliers and event agencies are offering
cost-saving ideas to their clients; the same tool can work for new connections
gained from existing clients. Why not bring them new ideas for saving
money? It is five times cheaper to get business from existing clients so why
not conduct semi-annual reviews to foster communication and help clients
improve their marketing? “When they win, you win” always applies."
I think the last sentence says it all.