Steve Jobs hired Paul Rand to develop the brand identity for NeXT, asking him to bring him “a few options” for the logo.
“No,” Rand replied. “I will solve your problem for you and you will pay me. You don’t have to use the solution. If you want options, go talk to other people.” Rand’s fee for this service would be about a quarter million of today’s dollars.
It’s easy to take such a stand if you’re considered the world’s best corporate identity designer, credited with the likes of IBM, ABC and UPS which, without his iconic designs would just be more letters in the corporate soup.
Despite Rand’s curmudgeonly footing, perhaps he was doing Jobs a favor.
Building a brand — let alone a business — requires constant decision-making. A brand leader might have to weigh dozens of names, legions of logos, and expanses of colorways, textures, shapes and imagery. (Not to mention strategy and messaging.)
There’s great satisfaction in making those decisions, of course. In winnowing down and starting to see how the new brand all fits together. In building consensus among a team and getting executive buy-in.
The brand agency’s role is to facilitate these decisions. Instead, they often make them harder. Some well-meaning firms view volume of choice as a feature, not a bug. Initial presentations come with dozens of options, but little in the way of point of view.
Or, even after one of those satisfying brand decisions has been made, they approach clients with a new idea to replace it. This comes from an adage in brand design that “there’s always a better way.” There’s truth to it: ideas are infinite.
But resources (time, money, attention) are not. It's about finding the best path available within the constraints provided. After all, in the land of infinite possibilities, who can say with 100% certainty you’ve arrived at the best one?
This is where Rand’s approach to NeXT was a favor to Jobs. His deliberate curation eliminated decisions for Jobs, letting him focus elsewhere.
An agency that can’t provide a point of view, or that continually second guesses its own product, is no better than one that lazily defends the first idea they fell in love with. It might be good for hourly billings to open the door to such churn. And it might even get to a “better” result on some measures.
But “better” on some measures might sacrifice it on others. Consensus is hard enough to build around brand decisions without tearing it down because a “better” idea came up. Pushing back a launch for “better” isn’t better for achieving pressing revenue goals. Going back to the CEO to explain that the thing you sold them on a month ago wasn’t right after all isn’t better for your credibility.
To be sure, brand leaders should expect to see options and be willing to entertain new ideas. Range and iteration are important parts of the collaborative process. They help calibrate and refine.
But a valuable partner knows how to curate and recognizes when it's time to put the pencil down. A true expert helps a client make the best design decisions while considering business needs and respecting process constraints.
It’s not about settling for less than the best or leaving some stones unturned. But there will always be more stones. Seek a partner who knows when it’s time to stop turning them over and make its recommendation — arrived at through thoughtfulness and stood by with confidence.
