Although this article in the Pastry Box project by Greg Hoy, Differentiate or Die is about how tough 2014 has been for some design agencies, and how this tends to be cyclical, the bit that struck a note was why corporations reach for the silver bullet of external design agencies…and wondering if it works?

‘I’ve managed teams in some large organizations, many of which were building their own in-house capabilities. And, while on paper, it made sense for them to do so by snagging talent to achieve the promise of glorious self-sufficiency, the one thing that they never accounted for was their own politics. Time and time again, ideas were presented to various internal stakeholders, all of whom had their own agendas and budgets. Pushing ideas through the maze of red tape and exhausting levels of buy-in was usually a soul-sucking effort in futility. Even though everyone was theoretically working for the greater good, everyone was working against each other at the same time. Great ideas became mediocre ideas that became ghosts of ideas put on the back burner. And ultimately, the only way for them to ship something was to hire third party design firms. That dynamic hasn’t gone away. I don’t think it ever will.’

I have been both a poacher and a gamekeeper on this one. I am currently  a corporate game keeper I am watching the negative impact on an internal design studio of having them ammend and impliment the work of a third party agency.

It is always going to be a problem. Here is the problem from the third party agency side. In ‘Manuals 1 Design & Identity Guidelines’ by Unit Editions the section on the NASA redesign by Danne and Blackburn. Richard Danne talks of the effort they had to go to to get their 1974 redesign accepted by NASA. So the poacher selling to the reluctant corporate gamekeeper.

‘NASA was a coalition of many different agencies, that had been operating independently for decades…These centres were like fiefdoms: they enjoyed their freedom and their provincial specialities. At the time of the redesign, there was resistance to almost anything emitting from headquarters. The centres were like unruly children…’

they start distributing their redesign…

‘Those letterhead ‘gifts’ coming out of Washington and sporting the new logotype proceeded to detonate across the country…and all hell broke loose!’

‘What ensued was one of the most difficult assignments ever. Along with a PR representative from headquarters, we would travel the country from centre to centre, and give that full design presentation… over and over to hostile audiences.’

Finally it was accepted by the agency and was able to develop the brand over the years, which now fill the inspiration sections of many a design blog, and then one fateful day …

‘But in 1992, the new administrator, Dan Goldin, was touring the centres and his plane was landing at Ames Research Centre, which had a large logo on the roof of a building. A couple of older staffers touring with him made some disparaging remarks about the Worm (logotype) and Goldin commented: “Can I change that?” Naturally they answered: “Of course you can.”

So what does Richard Danne make of it all in the end.

‘As professionals we are all accustomed to setbacks and disappointments. Often things happen when there is a change in management or a new marketing team, or an election delivers a new administration. Its part of the game and there is little you can do about it. But reflecting back on the NASA programme, it is still painful. My solution is not to think about it, just keep moving forward.

So I just keep moving forward.