Yesterday, I (Anthroguy, aka Hank Delcore) had the pleasure of visiting Jeffrey Scott Agency for a guest lecture to the JSA staff. The visit grew out of my recent acquaintance with JSA’s Director of Client Strategies, Jim Lowe. Jim is doing some great strategic work on behalf of JSA clients using a variety of market research methods. Meeting up — a link facilitated by Travis Sheridan — Jim and I quickly discovered common ground in the use of strategic information to inform the design and marketing of client products and services.
My talk to the assembled staff focused on the use of ethnography to get at the implicit, contextual level of users’ experience of various product and service areas. I used some examples I’ve laid out in a previous posting, as well as some drawn from the Library Study we did at Fresno State and a recent advance in hearing aid design. As Jim and I discussed before my visit, the puzzling thing about this kind of work is: how do you translate strategic information into the actual design of effective, experientially rich products and messages. In other words, what exactly takes place in the space between the collection and analysis of the design/marketing data and the final product. The data is advisory: it never actually “tells” you what the final design should be. So, typically, the creatives, ideally in conversation with the data, work their magic and come up with the final message or design.
I don’t think any of us really know what that “magic” is. Afterall, this is art we are talking about, whether it’s a carefully crafted radio spot or a beautiful product. What I can say, however, is that the chances of a smooth and effective shift from data to design get better with close collaboration among project managers, research types and the creatives themselves. This was what I tried to leave with the folks at JSA:
“Product or account managers, researchers and creatives – we need to keep each other close, perhaps even closer than our own kind. In the Library Study, we had the interior design students attend the design workshops [on the interior spaces of the Henry Madden Library] to see firsthand how we gathered the information. Afterwards, we all sat together, anthropologists and interior designers, and watched the video we shot of the students making their designs in the workshops. We hashed out the meaning of the way they placed the blocks and the meaning of their explanations for their choices. This was frustrating, puzzling, time consuming, exciting and rewarding. But in the end, we need to be in each other’s business as much as possible. There is no substitute for crossing boundaries and hashing things out, together, despite (or because of) all of our different specialties and interests. I am sure that there is no other way to excellence.”
Thanks to Bruce Batti, President of JSA, and to Jim Lowe, for the chance to exchange experiences with the strategic end of client services. The staff that gathered was attentive and engaged and we had a lively discussion afterwards. Looking forward to more collaboration with JSA in the future!

4 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 13, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Travis Sheridan
I’m happy to read that the relationship is progressing. It is very helpful to share the knowledge.
January 13, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Dave Childers
Great piece Hank. I have done some consulting/freelancing for JSA – also through Jim – and they are one of my favorite companies in Fresno. Not only do they do great work, but they are really great individual people and very engaging to work with. I have always enjoyed interacting with JSA, and I’m glad to hear that you both are sharing ideas and strategies!
January 14, 2010 at 9:22 am
Sarah Pruner
It was a pleasure listening to your presentation, Hank. The insights discussed were valuable and will not be forgotten. Thanks so much for your time!
July 25, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Kenneth Morshead
While reading this I could not help but immediately think of when I observed both sides of the fence on this issue. The previous company that a friend of mine (in the same field as myself) worked for was a design firm that employed both architects and engineers as opposed to the normal where each of these fields usually came from different firms and had to work independently. The fact that all of this work was done “in house” did allow for a better product as there was better communication and a better knowledge of the other’s field. Also, actions were taken in order to strengthen this bond between fields such as meetings and team building seminars and although they seemed like a nuisance to many of the employees they truly did enlighten both fields of what the other did, both good and bad. Ultimately, this allowed for them to better work with each other and produce a better product in regards to cost and quality. This company was very much in agreement with your “crossing boundaries” idea and the importance of a different perspective through in depth questioning from a pair of outside eyes.
Without boring anyone with too many details, another company in this same field that I was able to observe very closely does not have this overlap and thus every process seemed to take longer than I was ever accustomed to. Also, during these processes not being able to immediately discuss an issue with the required person proves to really slow down a project. In all fields it looks as if it is becoming increasingly difficult to have correlation as everyone tends to have a busy schedule and most of the time when you are working on a task they are busy with another task and a bond is not easily made. I am a firm believer in this direct association with the idea of excellence being obtained through a healthy knowledge being known of all processes by all parties involved.