tiny gigantic

They’re boring. They don’t spark conversation. They don’t ask questions worth answering. They most often sound like this: “the new logo we created for (client name here) uses powerful diagonal lines to symbolize (generic brand values here).” Fucking kill me.

Okay, okay: I’ll back up a little.

We’re in a business that deals with the messy goo of creativity, something that, all by itself, is hard enough to grow and manage without having to figure out how to sell it to someone else. But we do sell it. And so we need proof of its worth, something potential clients can look at to get a feel for what it is we do. Enter the case study: a rehashing of an old creative brief, a glorified description of old work, and some pretty pictures.

The problem with the case study is that it only shows what you have done. Showing old work will only bring more of the same. If a client sees something you did in, say 1999, and it matches the thing in their head that they think they want, you’re going to wind up replicating it. So it can’t be different. And different is what the client came to you for.

This why we rarely show our past client work (not to mention that none of our potential clients really wants to see some brochure we made for a company they don’t care about). We’d rather have a conversation that gets the potential client excited about the possibilities of newness, that shows them the depth of our thinking, that poses questions they’d like to have a hand in answering. Of course, it’s only certain kind of client with a certain amount of courage who signs on to work with us. And that’s good. It means we won’t be sentenced to do the same work over and over and over.

I know. Easier said than done. But, if you must cite past work, for god sakes, don’t put the emphasis on what you did (brand refresh, new logo in blue, bold website design) but rather on what you learned about communication that can help others.

So what should you show, if not past client work? One good option is to show your self-initiated projects. You do have some of those, right?

04/16/07 by josh kamler

This entry was posted on Monday, April 16th, 2007 at 10:50 am and is filed under Thinking, Toolbox. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.