Now to be totally honest despite the various classes I have taken in marketing and advertising, I never really thought of the design aspect of products. The professor would mention how products should be designed to cater to their target market, but as a class we never went much further than just discussing why Tropicana’s redesign was such an epic fail. If only everyone drank orange juice out of fancy glasses.
Thus out of marketing’s 4Ps, I dismissed the product as trivial and not worth my time. However after the class lecture with Jeff Mulhausen, I have to reconsider. I know my thinking was too narrow, perhaps as an advertiser the only interest I had was for how the logo looked and what the label portrayed. After Mulhausen explained the various styles of famous designers, it became apparent how crucial the product look/feel really is. For example, Dieter Ram believed in the concept of keeping things simple which is still a successful philosophy today. Apple is a great example of a company that has profited enormously from sticking true to this philosophy. It is interesting how these past designers have been preaching their styles which were viewed as futuristic in the past but currently they are appropriate and quite frankly sell very well today (they were even pushing for eco-friendly products back then).
Mulhausen also mentioned something that was a bit strange to me. According to him,
“Business Success = Social Benefit.”
The idea of corporate social responsibility has been around forever. Currently, it is all society ever hears about from one company to the next. As a marketer, I can see why companies would commit to such responsibilities to gain brownie points with consumers. However, I am skeptical whether this prediction will come true. I believe that corporate social responsibility is important, but not important enough to the point where it will determine the success or failure of a business. Despite everyone suddenly deciding to ride the charity wave, I do not think that the skpetics’ arguments should be ignored. Minette E. Drumwright states that there can be power struggles/ethical implications between partnerships of large corporations and non-profits. For example, if a percent of profits will be given to the non-profit, companies can limit the discretion of their sales to limit the amount of their donations. If you take Milton Friedman’s answer to what a business’ real purpose is, to earn the most profit for its stakeholders, the idea that a business’ success relying on how much it benefits society would be questionable. Will stakeholders support social causes if it affects their return on investments? Nevertheless, I see that Mulhausen has a point. Corporate social responsibility is an important issue today. Consumers are actively responding to products that serve a greater benefit to society as a whole (ex. breast cancer pins, TOMS Shoes, etc.) I just wonder if everyone starts to do it, will companies lose their sense of sincerity among consumers?
Design Philosophy in Action:
Another innovative product, aside from those mentioned in class, is the Starbucks insulated cup. With its double insulated walls, cold drinks do not leave behind water marks. Also with the extra insulation, drinks stay colder for longer which means you have more time to drink your beverage before the ice melts and waters it down. This was also a creative way for Starbucks to try to entice consumers to be eco-friendly by purchasing this reusable cup and getting discounts each time they did reuse it. The design was so simple! Henry Dreyfuss states, “If people are made safer, more comfortable, more eager to purchase, more efficient, or just happier, the designer has succeeded.” That is exactly what Starbucks did. Good for them.
