Dear Mr. Kaye,
The most recent issue of GD USA (Graphic Design USA) has me once again wringing my hands in distress. The tweet I posted after my read encapsulates my irritation with your magazine and other publications that perpetuate the design awards industry: "Why is every issue of GD USA an 'awards' issue? The design awards industry is such a scam, payola so you can say you're 'award-winning.'"
The mediocre articles--generally written with little expertise or research (judging from the content)--I can take. The fluffy anecdotes, bullet-ridden "tips" passages, and extra leading to fill a page I can take. The inundation of ads and heavy inserts from paper companies and reply cards promising more information and samples from advertisers I can take.
The awards issues I can't take anymore.
After looking through all of the award-winning designs, I ask: What percentage of entrants are really rejected, and what percentage are merited? Your opening piece, "Welcome Letter: It Takes Courage" claims that only 400 of 4,000-plus entries are listed as winners, but how can it be that so much crap has stuck to the walls of your magazine if these numbers are correct?
My assumption is that it's all about the money. I am not under the impression that magazines are not-for-profit organizations, and I also do not believe that making profit is a bad thing; on the contrary, I am more than a bit of a capitalist. However, when you've already earned the entry fees (I believe around $55 for a single entry, $80 for two... something like that), why must your judging panel feel obligated to include some clearly badly designed work with the winners?
It is almost as if he correctly spells everything and fits everything in the allotted space, a designer is worthy of a pat on the back. I disagree.
Here are some examples:
The first spread of award-winning designs is for annual reports. Three of the featured pieces have overused, meaningless statements as headlines: "Creating a Better Tomorrow," "Tomorrow's Neurological Care. Today.," and "The Building Blocks of Excellence." Really? These were standouts in annual report design?
I could go on with technical complaints, like poor typeface usage (overused or basic fonts, typefaces whose thin areas disappear), hokey design elements (an old ripped map!), and lackluster photography, but let's move on to another section.
In the first spread of the advertising section, how in the world were the Educational Testing Service, Applied Biosystems, and Geico ads selected as good examples of design? Was it the heavy-handed, unrealistic drop shadow that renders the Geico gecko two-dimensional? The women's strange expression, bad opacity choice, and weird headline letter spacing (and line-breaking) of the Educational Testing Service ad? The poor lettering choice and unequal spacing above and below the color break on the Applied Biosystems ad? Let's not even address all that is wrong with the Cleaning Systems, Inc. ad. You judges should hang your heads in shame at that decision!
With regard to the announcements, invitations, and cards section, my complaints are less grave. Thanks to the beautiful work of Alpine Creative Group, I didn't cry when I turned to this section. However, I sighed a lot and yelled, "BORRRRING" enough times to irritate my dog. The 92nd Street Y may be ages ahead of most YMCA marketing efforts, but this design should have been included with the 1999 winners. The Aetna "Heal the World" card, Aurora Health Care invitation, and Cognition Studio holiday greeting are all gigantic snooze-fests more likely attributed to a first-year design student than a professional design team! Oh, and Geico's thank-you card actually made me gag.
The brochures and collateral were pretty abysmal too: You actually included a non-Christmas design that paired red with green (American Culinary Foundation brochure). The American Collectors Insurance brochure is a great example of bad design and bad technical execution. The Clark County School District materials create that undesirable vibrating color eye-ache even at the small size. With a few exceptions, this section is just page after page of uninspiring, throwaway designs that are "adequate" but short-lived.
It's clear from continuing through the calendars, newsletters, publications, and logos that, by and large, the kind of people who enter this design contest are the kind to remain stagnant and rely on old techniques rather than innovating. What's meritable in that?
The Internet design section is the worst of all: Every winning design is tired, and all (with the exception of USA Today Media Lounge and College of St. Rose) are technically bad. I did my research on this one and checked out all of the sites to find outdated code, table-based layout, slow load times, dead links, inline styles, poor search-engine optimization, bad search functions, image maps, and more Web no-nos--in addition to weird design choices like distracting Flash and overuse of Verdana. The designers featured as award-winners in your magazine are working in the virtual Dark Ages of Internet design.
The worst part of the whole issue is that the designs are almost secondary to the data about who was involved in creating them. Perhaps four items to a page would make the award-winners' works more viewable by the subscriber to your magazine!
I am not here to hate on the design industry. When a panel asserts the authority to decide on the validity of designers' work, they open themselves to be scrutinized for their choices. We're not in kindergarten, and this is not supposed to be the equivalent of each kindergartner receiving a diploma and mortarboard at the end of the year so they all feel accomplished (even the dumb, slow, and talentless ones). Throughout childhood, adolescence, and continued education, it is important to slightly favor encouragement over criticism.
When adult professionals voluntarily submit their work to be evaluated, their requests for honest critiques and rankings are implied.
If the submissions are so bad, has GD USA considered finding winners on their own? Allow anyone to submit work, and in exchange, compare the work against what exists in the industry. In comparison to the whole of the design world, is it good, bad, notable enough to warrant an award? Include them alongside stunning design examples you've found on your own. You'll still get your entry fees, for as long as there are design industry award calls, there will be designers enough to submit their work for just a chance at someone recognizing their often overlooked services.
Sincerely,
April Carter Grant
The most recent issue of GD USA (Graphic Design USA) has me once again wringing my hands in distress. The tweet I posted after my read encapsulates my irritation with your magazine and other publications that perpetuate the design awards industry: "Why is every issue of GD USA an 'awards' issue? The design awards industry is such a scam, payola so you can say you're 'award-winning.'"
The mediocre articles--generally written with little expertise or research (judging from the content)--I can take. The fluffy anecdotes, bullet-ridden "tips" passages, and extra leading to fill a page I can take. The inundation of ads and heavy inserts from paper companies and reply cards promising more information and samples from advertisers I can take.
The awards issues I can't take anymore.
After looking through all of the award-winning designs, I ask: What percentage of entrants are really rejected, and what percentage are merited? Your opening piece, "Welcome Letter: It Takes Courage" claims that only 400 of 4,000-plus entries are listed as winners, but how can it be that so much crap has stuck to the walls of your magazine if these numbers are correct?
My assumption is that it's all about the money. I am not under the impression that magazines are not-for-profit organizations, and I also do not believe that making profit is a bad thing; on the contrary, I am more than a bit of a capitalist. However, when you've already earned the entry fees (I believe around $55 for a single entry, $80 for two... something like that), why must your judging panel feel obligated to include some clearly badly designed work with the winners?
It is almost as if he correctly spells everything and fits everything in the allotted space, a designer is worthy of a pat on the back. I disagree.
Here are some examples:
The first spread of award-winning designs is for annual reports. Three of the featured pieces have overused, meaningless statements as headlines: "Creating a Better Tomorrow," "Tomorrow's Neurological Care. Today.," and "The Building Blocks of Excellence." Really? These were standouts in annual report design?
I could go on with technical complaints, like poor typeface usage (overused or basic fonts, typefaces whose thin areas disappear), hokey design elements (an old ripped map!), and lackluster photography, but let's move on to another section.
In the first spread of the advertising section, how in the world were the Educational Testing Service, Applied Biosystems, and Geico ads selected as good examples of design? Was it the heavy-handed, unrealistic drop shadow that renders the Geico gecko two-dimensional? The women's strange expression, bad opacity choice, and weird headline letter spacing (and line-breaking) of the Educational Testing Service ad? The poor lettering choice and unequal spacing above and below the color break on the Applied Biosystems ad? Let's not even address all that is wrong with the Cleaning Systems, Inc. ad. You judges should hang your heads in shame at that decision!
With regard to the announcements, invitations, and cards section, my complaints are less grave. Thanks to the beautiful work of Alpine Creative Group, I didn't cry when I turned to this section. However, I sighed a lot and yelled, "BORRRRING" enough times to irritate my dog. The 92nd Street Y may be ages ahead of most YMCA marketing efforts, but this design should have been included with the 1999 winners. The Aetna "Heal the World" card, Aurora Health Care invitation, and Cognition Studio holiday greeting are all gigantic snooze-fests more likely attributed to a first-year design student than a professional design team! Oh, and Geico's thank-you card actually made me gag.
The brochures and collateral were pretty abysmal too: You actually included a non-Christmas design that paired red with green (American Culinary Foundation brochure). The American Collectors Insurance brochure is a great example of bad design and bad technical execution. The Clark County School District materials create that undesirable vibrating color eye-ache even at the small size. With a few exceptions, this section is just page after page of uninspiring, throwaway designs that are "adequate" but short-lived.
It's clear from continuing through the calendars, newsletters, publications, and logos that, by and large, the kind of people who enter this design contest are the kind to remain stagnant and rely on old techniques rather than innovating. What's meritable in that?
The Internet design section is the worst of all: Every winning design is tired, and all (with the exception of USA Today Media Lounge and College of St. Rose) are technically bad. I did my research on this one and checked out all of the sites to find outdated code, table-based layout, slow load times, dead links, inline styles, poor search-engine optimization, bad search functions, image maps, and more Web no-nos--in addition to weird design choices like distracting Flash and overuse of Verdana. The designers featured as award-winners in your magazine are working in the virtual Dark Ages of Internet design.
The worst part of the whole issue is that the designs are almost secondary to the data about who was involved in creating them. Perhaps four items to a page would make the award-winners' works more viewable by the subscriber to your magazine!
I am not here to hate on the design industry. When a panel asserts the authority to decide on the validity of designers' work, they open themselves to be scrutinized for their choices. We're not in kindergarten, and this is not supposed to be the equivalent of each kindergartner receiving a diploma and mortarboard at the end of the year so they all feel accomplished (even the dumb, slow, and talentless ones). Throughout childhood, adolescence, and continued education, it is important to slightly favor encouragement over criticism.
When adult professionals voluntarily submit their work to be evaluated, their requests for honest critiques and rankings are implied.
If the submissions are so bad, has GD USA considered finding winners on their own? Allow anyone to submit work, and in exchange, compare the work against what exists in the industry. In comparison to the whole of the design world, is it good, bad, notable enough to warrant an award? Include them alongside stunning design examples you've found on your own. You'll still get your entry fees, for as long as there are design industry award calls, there will be designers enough to submit their work for just a chance at someone recognizing their often overlooked services.
Sincerely,
April Carter Grant
