# Graphic design salaries



## rneale (Jan 24, 2005)

Can anybody give me a rough idea about salaries? The sort of thing and art director/senior with ten years experience would get in Ottawa. It's time to push for a pay rise and I like to know what other people get. (In an anonymous, general kind of way of course). If anybody has any insights or words of wisdom, please share them.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

RGD does a survey every year, not sure if it is available to the public, but members get a book listing saleries by position and region. Check their website out rgdontario.com


----------



## andreww (Nov 20, 2002)

Really depends on the company you work for. High end studios/agency may pay well over $100k. On the other hand, many smaller companies will max you at about $50k.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

I'm just a lowly graphic designer working in Newfoundland in post-secondary education support staff making about $35,000 after four years in this position. Of course my housing and costs of living expenses are magnitudes less than it would be on the mainland.


----------



## grafico (Mar 25, 2005)

Well, I've got 2.5 years experience and make 32. It's a small studio with only three people. But yeah andreww is right, really depends on what kind of studio you're at.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

At the risk of being a lightning rod, I have found RGD'ers have a self agrandizing view of thier self worth. I have never met anyone in the industry making what the RDG survey claims.

Personally, I've yet to meet an RGD who has a realistic sense of thier own skill.

Creative designers can command very high dollars based on the awards they have won. well into the 100K's. Creative Directors at large agencies can triple that or more, but keep in mind, the high the number, the less of those people there are.

Most Creative designers at our agency are paid well below the majority of our Production designers. Production people usually top out in the 60k range. They make up for the low pay with longer carreers and benefits, while the creative types flutter from job to job.

As a general rule, you can't swing a dead cat around your haed in some parts of Downtown TO, without hitting a half dozen creatives..., but we cannot find enough high end production people...

Read Marketing Magazine, most bigger shopps place ads there...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JAMG said:


> At the risk of being a lightning rod, I have found RGD'ers have a self agrandizing view of thier self worth. I have never met anyone in the industry making what the RDG survey claims.


I agree... I make well above the average "intermediate" graphic design level (whatever that means), and I'm not an RGD.

Since the rest of your post isn't really all that relevant to the topic at hand, I thought I would counter it with my perspective, since you were so kind to offer yours.  

A good creative director is worth their weight in gold, as is a production designer. Production designers, however, usually don't get involved with the conception or creative aspect of projects and are typically relegated to grunt work on projects designed by someone else. They can lay out a publication in a flash (because the market commands it, thanks to computers and the general belief by clients that everything can be turned in on a dime) and know all the ins/outs of layout programs, but sit them down in front of a blank page and ask _them_ to develop something original...   

There are a lot of creative designers... who can blame them? Why would you want the thankless job of toiling away at impossible deadlines, incomplete client files, proofing disasters, A/A's from hell, repagination on command, and after-hours work? There are a lot of companies who hire students to work as production designers simply because they're cheaper and turnover is extremely high.

I've seen far too many production designers show up applying for a design position (creative, that is, and senior positions in some instances) without being able to show much in the way of original work that hadn't originally started with a senior designer or creative director.

I agree, market is saturated, but it's not just "creatives"--it's designers of all types jockeying for position trying to find work. However, the "jacks of all trades" are usually the ones make the cut--people who have a sense of flair, with decent design AND illustration skills, and a touch of little production savvy. Clients are becoming increasingly fickle in whom they spend their money on... and smaller companies are the ones getting a nice piece of the work, not the big firms. :greedy:


----------



## grafico (Mar 25, 2005)

I completely agree with the both of you, Manny P and JAMG. I am not RGD either, my creative director is, but he has no choice. He has to have RGD status in order to teach. Anyway, I don't want to start rambling about the worthlessness of RGD, that's for another thread.


----------



## arashi_kira (May 27, 2008)

*Another question*

I have a question too.

I was stupid and didn't write down being paid by the hour in the contract that I wrote. So my employer wants to pay twenty dollars for two projects that I made for him. Is that a fair pay?


----------



## emalen (Oct 10, 2004)

As someone who was forced to sit through RGD propaganda, umm.. I mean lectures in York/Sheridan design, I just wanted to take a moment to agree with JAMG.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Queue Huey Lewis and the News.

_"Gotta get back in time"_

...

Interestingly enough, my employer is making strides to push all our designers to become accredited with RGD this year. The market is being overrun with desktop publishers who are driving production costs so low that it's become practically impossible to actually make a profit.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

emalen said:


> As someone who was forced to sit through RGD propaganda, umm.. I mean lectures in York/Sheridan design, I just wanted to take a moment to agree with JAMG.


I sat through those as well, I don't see what the problem is though, if you don't think accreditation is of value then don't become a member. But if that is the case why the choice of getting an honours degree instead of a diploma? You had the extra $5000 a year x 4 to waste? You don't think it's of value yet you chose to be taught by RGD members.

Had arashi_kira been a member or at least owned a members handbook, they would have a basic understanding of business practices and contract standards.


----------



## esct (Feb 20, 2008)

JumboJones said:


> RGD does a survey every year, not sure if it is available to the public, but members get a book listing saleries by position and region. Check their website out rgdontario.com


Here's the RGD Salary Survey From 2006

http://www.rgdontario.com/pdf/06_survey.pdf


----------



## esct (Feb 20, 2008)

*My 2 cents on JAMG vs RGD*



JAMG said:


> At the risk of being a lightning rod, I have found RGD'ers have a self agrandizing view of thier self worth. I have never met anyone in the industry making what the RDG survey claims.


You raise an interesting point, and it sounds like you're pretty sore towards RGD badge wearers.

Tho' I don't disagree with you I might have a different take on it.

The Problem, I believe, is saturation. A designer isn't a designer if he/ she owns a mac and a version of photoshop. (real designers know this). But the kids saying they're designers don't.

Have you had a look at post-secondary schools? I don't care what institution you look at, they all offer a 'Graphic Design' Diploma. This means TROUBLE! For the profession, for designers and for creative people who are good at what they do.



JAMG said:


> As a general rule, you can't swing a dead cat around your haed in some parts of Downtown TO, without hitting a half dozen creatives..., but we cannot find enough high end production people...


Saturation. How many students of a design program fail? How many get kicked out? How many Don't make the cut? Schools are businesses. Everyone who PAYS / Graduates.

Now, It isn't a students fault for thinking they are a 'Designer' if a school hands them a diploma saying so. And, it isn't their fault for saying they are a 'Designer' if the RGD gives them a laminated card saying so.

Just so everyone has some clue of what's going on here, have a look at the salaries of a "Design Professor" compared to a designer. Schools are businesses more than anything. I believe that what they are doing in this scenario is wrong. Pumping out graduates with false hopes and false beliefs. Not being able to evaluate and compare their abilities with the challenges of the profession.



JAMG said:


> Personally, I've yet to meet an RGD who has a realistic sense of thier own skill.


How can schools graduate under-qualified graduates? Simple, No governing body. There is no body of people ensuring the minimum standards of education are taught by the schools and understood by the students.

Right now, I can't call myself a Doctor because a Legally recognized governing body says I can't. But, ANYONE (even my grandma) can call themselves a 'Designer' because, well... Who's going to stop them? This is what the RGD wants to be.. eventually. (I think)

How's that for a Rant?  

A little about me: For the record I am not (currently) a member of the RGD, No particular reason. I just failed to see the value in it. If someone were to make a good sales pitch I might join up again. But havn't really thought about it. I am a young designer 3ish years in, and I think I have some talent. I hate calling myself a designer because there are soo many of 'us' out there. Here's hoping that a career of creative problem solving will put me on another level. until then.. daydreaming. Thanks!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

esct said:


> Saturation. How many students of a design program fail? How many get kicked out? How many Don't make the cut? Schools are businesses. Everyone who PAYS / Graduates.


I wouldn't go that far, my program started with 140 students, and around 25 graduated. Even still times that by all the schools in Ontario that offer a GD diploma program, there really isn't a need for that many graduates. Having this many allows companies to offer lower pay, longer hours and no over time, because you are dispensable to them. 

But this is really one of those professions about doing what you love, not about the money.  I was really amazed at the amount of people who expected to make 40k a year after they graduated. I think GD would benefit from less schooling and more apprenticing like other trades.



esct said:


> Right now, I can't call myself a Doctor because a Legally recognized governing body says I can't. But, ANYONE (even my grandma) can call themselves a 'Designer' because, well... Who's going to stop them? This is what the RGD wants to be.. eventually. (I think).


Yes I would like to believe this to be true, but after 10 years I think they have done less education to the public and more to inflate their memberships. I'm now fairly good on educating my clients on what it means and how it benefits them, but it is always a process. 

Why I think it is important for myself and my profession, is simply to separate the pros from the joes. If I need an accountant do I hire someone without a CA designation? Sure I could, but do I want to take that chance with my money and my business? Same can be said about design, hiring a RGD isn't a guarantee for your business, but it's a good indication they know what they are doing, and are accountable to a set of standards by a governing body. 



esct said:


> A little about me: For the record I am not (currently) a member of the RGD, No particular reason. I just failed to see the value in it. If someone were to make a good sales pitch I might join up again. But havn't really thought about it. I am a young designer 3ish years in, and I think I have some talent. I hate calling myself a designer because there are soo many of 'us' out there. Here's hoping that a career of creative problem solving will put me on another level. until then.. daydreaming. Thanks!


I don't even bother telling people I'm a graphic designer anymore, I've fallen for that trap and tried to explain only to watch their eyes glaze over, I just tell people I make things look pretty now, it's so much easier.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> I think GD would benefit from less schooling and more apprenticing like other trades.


I totally agree. I actually graduated from the University of Ottawa with a Fine Arts Degree, top of my class (not bragging just saying to indicate that I actually DID work hard).

When I got out into the real world I soon realized I didn't want to be part of the "Ivory Tower" "High" art world, it just didn't mesh with where my work was going and what I was interested in. I got a job with a small video production company (because of video and photo work that I had done while I was in school, this was almost twenty years ago now) started out as a camera man became an editor and finished off as the Video Production Manager. That was after eight years of hard core on the job training, school of hard knocks dealing with clients and near disasters and learning how to deal with about every field contingency imaginable. I knew my s**t. 

For reasons that I won't go into here I made a career path shift and ended up moving to Marcom work which ended up leading to a heavy print and web orientation with my work. Basically I ended up being an apprentice all over again working my way up until I was a Graphic Designer in the Corporate Marcom Department of a multinational high tech company, which then subsequently closed its Canadian divisions and brought everything that we had been doing State side.

I now do a fair amount of freelance graphic design and web development work as well as have an employer for whom I do predominantly Marcom work.

I know for a fact that what I learned from my on the job, "get the job done no matter what it takes" training was infinitely more valuable than ANY amount of schooling I ever could have had. It is one thing to satisfy a Prof and quite another to satisfy a real world paying client whose business could be on the line if you f**k up and don't deliver.

A GD program that focused on real world apprenticeship placements would separate the wheat from the chafe in pretty damn short order and would successfully reduce the glut of "designers" that are currently out there.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Ultimately, I feel there are three key problems that contribute to the issues with the graphic design industry: inexperienced designers, inexperienced clients, and technology.

It used to be the only way you could get quality design work was if you went to a designer. There was no way around it; in order to get beautiful work you needed a designer because, at the time, it was difficult and tedious processes that required skills.

Then came technology.

Clients felt they were getting hosed for "pretty pictures" and desktop publishing allowed them to control the process, and look over the "designer's" shoulder. It became difficult to convince them that a designer was worthwhile because they simply could not understand that being able to paste pictures and enter text did not equate design, let alone GOOD design.

We have to battle the misconception that design is easy, is cheap, and that anyone and their dog can do design. Clients don't understand the process, they don't understand principles like good typography, colour, contrast, harmony, balance, etc.

What we need to do is not only better educate new designers (which is difficult--you can't force a person to go to an accredited college), but to better educate clients who will work WITH designers and what the process entails. Luckily, some colleges are changing their curriculum to include this aspect, but it usually pertains to vocations that are, more or less, directly related.

Eventually we will have to face the issue of so-called designers driving the market down. One way is to become an accredited RGD member. The more accredited designers there are, the better we can make the industry and help change the people's perception.

Frankly, it scares me to see how many faux designers are, out there. The amount of crap that comes in to our studio, looking for work, is astounding. It's such a problem in Ottawa, that competing firms are rallying together to get all of their employees accredited. It's just a matter of time before this becomes a necessity in order to get a design job.

Anyway, just my 2 pence.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

I'm not a graphic designer. My web site proves it. 

Just a general note on colleges. They appear to look for any job that is being paid decently and then proceed to overflow the market. Companies love it. It sets up a serious strategic problem for the employees as there becomes far more sellers of service than there are purchasers with a disproportionate reduction in salary. 

It is not just graphic design. In real estate, it has been rampant in the appraisal field for years. I have a house inspector in my B.N.I. group and he is now starting to feel the pinch. Coincidentally, colleges are now teaching house inspection.

In the technical fields, two of my kids are engineers. My daughter was thinking of picking up a trades ticket to suppliment her mechanical engineering. Her and her brother, the electrical engineer, were sitting there talking and it was really interesting. His comment was to watch what ticket you got. His example was electricians were very well paid as there was both a licencing and an apprenticship requirement which kept the supply down. Electrical technologists on the other hand were working the asses off to get their diploma and there were so many that they were treated like dirt and paid less.

So, from a money perspective, wathc where the community colleges are going and either be in on the ground floor or go the other way.

One exception to that I believe is Ryerson, now a university. I have watched them since I was in high school ( you know when the earth was green and the good lord walked on Toronto harbour), and they appear to have consistently been putting out emplyable repected graduates.


----------



## Rock Lobster (May 15, 2002)

I'm a pre-press guy (perhaps because my design skills SUCK) and have worked closely with scads of designers over the past 20 years. As far as RGDs go, in my experience the really good designers have not been RGDs and have not cared to be RGDs because their work stands on its own. It's the mediocre and truly deplorable "designers" who seek out this accreditation to bolster their own egos and professional image.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Rock Lobster said:


> I'm a pre-press guy (perhaps because my design skills SUCK) and have worked closely with scads of designers over the past 20 years. As far as RGDs go, in my experience the really good designers have not been RGDs and have not cared to be RGDs because their work stands on its own. It's the mediocre and truly deplorable "designers" who seek out this accreditation to bolster their own egos and professional image.


Of course there is no substitution for experience. That's good for those that have been in the business for 20 years, their work will speak for itself. It's more beneficial for those that haven't been in the business for that long.

I've heard the "I don't need them to tell me I'm a designer" excuse before, and I contribute that more to ego than wanting to be a member. When they start losing jobs to fly by night summer business start ups, they'll see the value in separating themselves from the mediocre.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Rock Lobster said:


> I'm a pre-press guy (perhaps because my design skills SUCK) and have worked closely with scads of designers over the past 20 years. As far as RGDs go, in my experience the really good designers have not been RGDs and have not cared to be RGDs because their work stands on its own. It's the mediocre and truly deplorable "designers" who seek out this accreditation to bolster their own egos and professional image.


One key issue that I have with RGD is the emphasis on academic knowledge seems to outweigh the practical. A plumber doesn't need to be familiar with the history of ancient aqueducts in order to become accredited.

I agree--the main reason why our firm is working to become accredited is to bolster our image, so to speak. But it also, on paper, separates us from others which can mean landing a large contract. To some clients, image is everything. We've seen RFPs come across our table in which accreditation is desired... we've lost out on competitions because we weren't accredited despite the experience our firm has and the quality of work that we do.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> One key issue that I have with RGD is the emphasis on academic knowledge seems to outweigh the practical. A plumber doesn't need to be familiar with the history of ancient aqueducts in order to become accredited.


History is important to our profession, but do I really need to know who was the editor of Harper's Bazaar back in the 1930's? No, that's why that part of the exam is open book. Where as the technical knowledge and code of conduct isn't. I found most of the exam a review from school but a couple of the suggested readings I found where quite helpful. They could use some more emphasis on typography though, maybe Robert Bringhurst as a required reading.

This is a quote from one of the required readings that I found interesting and quite true.



> The majority of young designers would give you a blank stare if you dropped such names as Ernst Barenscher, Robert Burns, Heather Cooper, Carl Dair, Jim Donoahue, Allan Fleming, Manfred Gotthans, Fritz Gottschalk, Rolf Harder, Hans Kleefled, Burton Kramer, Ernst Roch and Chris Yaneff. However, ask any young architect who 78-year-old Frank Gehry is and you will get a more enlightened response. For some reason, architects become renown as they age, while communication designers are often forgotten. Yet their works and contributions to our field should not be ignored.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Quote:
> 
> The majority of young designers would give you a blank stare if you dropped such names as Ernst Barenscher, Robert Burns, Heather Cooper, Carl Dair, Jim Donoahue, Allan Fleming, Manfred Gotthans, Fritz Gottschalk, Rolf Harder, Hans Kleefled, Burton Kramer, Ernst Roch and Chris Yaneff. However, ask any young architect who 78-year-old Frank Gehry is and you will get a more enlightened response. For some reason, architects become renown as they age, while communication designers are often forgotten. Yet their works and contributions to our field should not be ignored.


I actually don't find this surprising at all.

Whether we like it or not what we do is quite disposable and has a very short life span in the culture. What we do is very often not only reflective of our time but of a particular moment in time. It often needs do be if it is going to be noticed.

Architecture on the other hand if done well, is iconic and will stand out as a symbol for its time. It is also just happens to (hopefully) be around for a lot longer (as an artifact) than Graphic Design.

I agree that the work of giants whose shoulders we stand on should not be ignored, but at the same time if one wants to go down in history and be remembered for your accomplishments, then you are waayy better off to go into some other field of artistic endeavour.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jumbo: You don't need to know who was editor of Harper's Bazaar in the 1930s, but you need to know what it looked like.

But I agree that the profession is in big trouble when clients don't perceive any difference between what they or their nephew with a computer can produce and what a graphic designer can produce. In many cases, the client CAN produce something better than the wannabe designer with a copy of InDesign. 

I look at the sorry state of food photography for example--most of the shots in advertisements now look like they were photographed by the cook. I don't think that the clients in these cases can actually see the difference between the horrible, unappetizing photos they run, and properly staged food photgraphy. Design is similar--the client is dazzled by harsh colours and 14 different fonts and believes that they're getting their money's worth.

Educate the client on aesthetics? I think that's impossible. You have to be able to show the client that their aesthetic choices are costing them money in the long run, and that's a difficult case to make.

That's made more difficult by the fact that computer printing has negated the differences in production costs between a badly designed job and one that's designed properly. I remember 15 years ago seeing an idiot behind a computer speccing a 7-colour job by accidentally selecting 3 PMS colours in addition to the four standard colours--the job cost 60 per cent more to print and there was hell to pay. The printer will now simply adjust for these errors and the hideous work will print without a hitch. Where's the advantage in having a better knowledge of production when mistakes are absorbed?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

screature said:


> Whether we like it or not what we do is quite disposable and has a very short life span in the culture. What we do is very often not only reflective of our time but of a particular moment in time. It often needs do be if it is going to be noticed.
> 
> Architecture on the other hand if done well, is iconic and will stand out as a symbol for its time. It is also just happens to (hopefully) be around for a lot longer (as an artifact) than Graphic Design.


Print matter is disposable yes, but our ideas shouldn't be. Successful design or advertising campaigns stand the test of time. Identities for corporations are expensive and should really only have to be done or revised every 25 years if that. Are you telling me logos like CN, CBC, BMO, TD, hell even IBM and Apple are not iconic? Problem for designers now is that these identities are now done by teams and its really the design firm that gets recognized.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I have a familiarity of the history behind Gill Sans, Futura, Helvetica, moveable type, the Bauhaus movement, etc. But I can't name a single graphic designer, let alone one _Canadian_ graphic designer, who has made an impact in our field.

Why is it important that someone should know who Heather Cooper is? She designed the Roots logo... and? The question I would ask is: What designer has offered our field the equivalent Frank Llyod Wright's _Falling Water_? I'm not an architect, yet I know who he is, and what he's done.

I designed the latest version of Canada's Food Guide--it's a job that I worked on for a good year and a half that involved dozens of redesigns and iterations; it's been printed and distributed across Canada a million times over in a dozen languages and has been featured on television, in the news, and in commercials. Does that automatically bring me to the upper echelon of Canadian designers?

Hell no. It's my designs, my ideas, and my work through and through (with the exception of the illustrations--they were done by my colleague John, who had to do over 200 images over various food items). But Roots was a teeny-tiny company when it first started out... just like Nike. I don't mean to diminish Mrs. Coopers work, but why is it integral for me (or anybody) to know who she is and what she's done? Has her work changed the paradigm of logo design? Has it pushed the limits of corporate identities?

Or is it just a veiled attempt at name dropping in the efforts to show how smart a designer is?

I don't know.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I should also say that this is one of the best threads I've seen on ehMac in a while.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It is because of their grass roots work that design has become an industry in Canada. Before them companies would look to New York or Chicago for their design work. And unfortunately they still do, another thing that accreditation and the RGD can only help.

As for a FLW equivalant, Paul Rand comes to mind.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JumboJones said:


> Print matter is disposable yes, but our ideas shouldn't be. Successful design or advertising campaigns stand the test of time. Identities for corporations are expensive and should really only have to be done or revised every 25 years if that. Are you telling me logos like CN, CBC, BMO, TD, hell even IBM and Apple are not iconic? Problem for designers now is that these identities are now done by teams and its really the design firm that gets recognized.


Point taken when it comes to identity work. I didn't mean disposable as in literally or physically. I meant in terms of the life span of a marketing campaign, a design trend or the like and how long it will be effective on a consuming public. The market place is very fickle.

I know where you are coming from a design insiders point of view, but for the consuming public, well there are very few advertising campaigns that stand the test time and people actually remember for any length of time.

There are a few brand identities that may stand the test of time, but that time frame is very short when compared to the time span of architecture.


----------



## CanadaRAM (Jul 24, 2005)

arashi_kira said:


> I have a question too.
> 
> I was stupid and didn't write down being paid by the hour in the contract that I wrote. So my employer wants to pay twenty dollars for two projects that I made for him. Is that a fair pay?


This probably should be in a thread of its own rather than tacked onto this thread.

Is it fair? Of course not.

If however you wrote a contract that says "I will do this specific graphic work for $20" and you didn't write "per hour", then you goofed, and you are legally bound by the contract.

Of course, you now know something about the ethics of this 'employer' and you will never deal with them again.

BTW if it is contract work, then the other party isn't strictly an employer, and as an independent contractor you are *not* covered by most employee protection laws, including the minimum wage.

If however you are a regular hourly employee, the employer may still be bound by some laws on your 'outside' work for them. 

Also, depending on the wording of your contract, you may be able to exercise some control over copyright on the materials you produced, the original artwork files, the ability of the purchaser to revise, re-purpose or reprint the material, etc. If you signed over full rights in the contract, then you're hooped. But otherwise, the creator retains copyright and has some leverage.


----------



## Paul O'Keefe (Jun 3, 2005)

This is a very good thread. The topic of which has played on my mind alot recently.

The salaries of graphic designers in Newfoundland is very low. We're a stingy people on the East Coast and we don't want to pay the money for the work... ever. We like to be self reliant and do the work ourselves. In magazines and newspapers here you routinely see large advertisements with pixelation and low resolution web graphics for photos and logos. Of course the publishers don't care about the quality of an advertisement as long as they get the money for it.

I don't think we have a glut of designers here. I think we have a glut of non-professionals doing work because business, industry, and organizations just go to whomever they know to get work done. It's the whole "my-brother's-kid-is-good-with-computers-and-likes-to-draw" syndrome. Our businesses just don't see or know the value behind professional work. I think an industry association would go a long way here to help communicate to and educate potential clients. I imagine a travelling speaking tour to local chambers of commerce would be greatly appreciated by local business leaders.

Of course the GDC hasn't gone out of their way to even begin recruitment in Newfoundland, not even making contact with the institutions which offer design related diplomas and certificates.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

Salaries are dropping across the industry because there is alway someone who will work for less. Client don't want to pay for the difference between godd work and Good enough work.

Great work can still command top dollar, our work is concept driven, but is remarkably simplistic in terms of design and file construction.

Designs that tax the limits of software capability or adhear to obscure design history can be diverting triva, but take a look at what flyers come in your paper each weekend and you will see what sells....


----------



## esct (Feb 20, 2008)

Lets start off with this Gem from Manny P Design;



MannyP Design said:


> I should also say that this is one of the best threads I've seen on ehMac in a while.


I concur Manny, It's nice to see thoughtful considerate discussion amongst all the Mac vs PC talk - which is fun in its own way too of course 

There are a lot of great ideas which are coming out in this discussion. I believe a lot of it is in regards to the frustration that comes across in the designer identity. Not 'Identity Design'  as 'Designers', who are we really? What do we do? Where do we fit in?

I've always believed a Designer is someone who can analyze a problem, create solutions and implement structure to initiate positive change. Be it an architect, industrial designer, interior designer, furniture designer, etc... any kind of designer should be able to see the problems, find a solution and make it happen.

Graphic Designers then should be able to do this with imagery, pictures and words. Our, 'Master Task' is to communicate. Clients need GD's to communicate for them because; we do it better, faster and cheaper. If we don't they'll just doit themselves, and why shouldn't they?



Macfury said:


> ..the profession is in big trouble when clients don't perceive any difference between what they or their nephew with a computer can produce and what a graphic designer can produce.





Paul O'Keefe said:


> I think we have a glut of non-professionals doing work because business, industry, and organizations just go to whomever they know to get work done.


So, why don't clients understand that they neeeed (extra long need) us? I believe it's a communication issue. Ironic isn't it?



JAMG said:


> ..take a look at what flyers come in your paper each weekend and you will see what sells....


JAMG knows it, 'bad' (not ultra-sexy) design sells. Why does it sell? Because it gets the job done, It Communicates! And that's all the client wants.

We're perfectionists, and we're very concerned with how things look, what font that is, swatch colors, all that.. But if it doesn't help the Clients Bottom-line, why bother?



Macfury said:


> You have to be able to show the client that their aesthetic choices are costing them money in the long run, and that's a difficult case to make.





Paul O'Keefe said:


> ..publishers don't care about the quality of an advertisement as long as they get the money for it.





JAMG said:


> Client don't want to pay for the difference between godd work and Good enough work.


What we as Graphic Designers have to show a client isn't what color it is, what font we used, that we chose this layout over that layout. Nope.. It should be how these choices will effect their bottom line.



JAMG said:


> Great work can still command top dollar


We have to communicate -exactly- why a great design, a great concept, a great marketing strategy, campaign, ad, website, logo, brochure etc.. is -absolutely- necessary to increase their profits.. Because, if we can't prove that great design IS necessary, it probably isn't. And they'll know that more than anyone else.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

> One exception to that I believe is Ryerson, now a university. I have watched them since I was in high school ( you know when the earth was green and the good lord walked on Toronto harbour), and they appear to have consistently been putting out emplyable repected graduates.


i have to agree. i took a few CE courses there 6 or 7 years ago and was very impressed with the professionalism and competence of their faculty. i wish i could have taken more courses just for the hell of it but the commute was too much.


----------



## TroutMaskReplica (Feb 28, 2003)

esct said:


> Lets start off with this Gem from Manny P Design;
> We have to communicate -exactly- why a great design, a great concept, a great marketing strategy, campaign, ad, website, logo, brochure etc.. is -absolutely- necessary to increase their profits.. Because, if we can't prove that great design IS necessary, it probably isn't. And they'll know that more than anyone else.


our clients are usually young hotshot marketing types at large consumer foods companies, and their primary concern is always 'how quickly can you get this done?' and 'how much will it cost?'

not that i do much graphic design any more. i migrated into retail merchandising and display design (i also have a technical background, which helps) and spend most of my time designing stuff in the 3rd dimension. the displays actually act as a sort of trojan horse for graphic design business, as i'll mock up the graphics panels myself and the clients usually go with the concept in the mock up.

but i digress.


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

Well, well, well, this topic comes up at a very interesting time.
We just posted an ad on Marketing Magazine's website looking for designers (yes, I know, it should be top drawer, not top draw. It was rushed and no one picked it up )

I was just saying to an industrial design friend of mine over a beer about how I would hate to be graphic designer these days.....the competition is fierce.

The standard was all over the place, as I guess it would be for any position being available. The problem the industry faces is the fact it is a very subjective product that is produced. No one can argue that their solution is entirely the right solution. In the face of marketers who are often the ones who call the shots I have seen many a graphic designer capitulate because they simply cannot justify the reason for something being like it is.

I'm slightly better off with my area of expertise because some things are built in a certain way because that simply is the best way to do it.

I guess any good designer needs the ability to justify their work without being arrogant...it's a fine line.

In any industry though people of all levels find their place. The good ones rise to the top and the not so good ones do layouts for the Home Depot flyer  (apologies in advance). You get what you pay for.

Sorry my points are all over the place here, trying to take in an interesting thread while finishing some work.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Loafer said:


> In any industry though people of all levels find their place. The good ones rise to the top and the not so good ones do layouts for the Home Depot flyer  (apologies in advance).


Hey, that is where I got my start with Quebecor, worked on their Dreambook and the CT flyers as well, monotonous, but great pay, and overtime... oh I miss the overtime. I don't miss close cropping hockey nets and bike spokes though. 

But at the time, experience was experience, and as long as it had money coming in. I wasn't as high and mighty as some of my peers I graduated with that thought they should be walking hand in hand with Bruce Mau. Anything beat my old job of being a dish pig, but some people I guess don't like to get their hands dirty, or is it that their "S" don't stink, it's one of the two. :lmao:


----------



## Loafer (Jan 7, 2004)

JumboJones said:


> Hey, that is where I got my start with Quebecor, worked on their Dreambook and the CT flyers as well, monotonous, but great pay, and overtime... oh I miss the overtime. I don't miss close cropping hockey nets and bike spokes though.
> 
> But at the time, experience was experience, and as long as it had money coming in. I wasn't as high and mighty as some of my peers I graduated with that thought they should be walking hand in hand with Bruce Mau. Anything beat my old job of being a dish pig, but some people I guess don't like to get their hands dirty, or is it that their "S" don't stink, it's one of the two. :lmao:


The point I wanted to make was that yeah, work like that is always going to be low paid because, to be fair, it's not the most creative work. There is always work out there from clients who don't need high brow designers because the design is suppose to come across as "cheap" & "save, save, save" because that's what the brand is. Having a really flush design with a tiny little logo in the corner and lots of negatice space isn't going to do HD any favours selling.

It's not the fault of the designer or client.....it's the low expectations of the public.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I think it comes down to educating the public (clients). There are some clients who we deal with who understand the value of a good design. There are others who are neophytes. And then there are those who just plain think it's a waste of money and think pretty pictures won't amount to much and want to keep it simple (like engineers.) 

I think some designers take clients for granted and that everyone should know all that is involved. They don't sit down and outline of what the project will entail, what will be required of the client, and how long it will take.

The firm that I work for has been making efforts to emphasize this with all our clients. People become too comfortable with dumping their content on our laps with little consideration--usually with the belief that part of our job includes cleaning or organizing their work.

An uneducated client can cause a lot hiccups that may inflate their budget. If a designer doesn't communicate with the client and what the consequences hold, the relationship can turn sour very fast when the invoice is sent upon completion.

A good designer should be able to rationalize everything to the client in simple and direct terms so there is no misunderstanding: with proposals, quotes and presenting concepts. When a client requests changes, it can be difficult to say yes since this industry is very much subjective to personal tastes. A good designer should be open to compromise, but not at the expense of the project. Ultimately, however, the client is the one who signs the dotted line. The best we can do is them reach their goal.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JumboJones might find this funny:

I saw RGD had a booth at MARCOM 2008 this week... a young man and woman were there and dressed a little _too_ causal for a convention aimed specifically for marketing/communications professionals; ie suits, who are predominantly Public sector.

I had been reading their handbook on the bus to work/home lately. In it there is great deal of emphasis that is placed on one's image (more-so with respects to how you present yourself when you go for a job interview) but it seemed ironic that RGD representatives were dress somewhat inappropriately given the audience--it looked like they were better suited at recruiting new design students as opposed to educating marketing professionals about the benefits of working with accredited graphic designers.

~

Speaking of the RGD Handbook, has anybody seen the latest edition? Am I crazy, or is the typography just a little odd? Maybe it's just me, but I find the flow and hierarchy difficult to follow.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> JumboJones might find this funny:
> 
> I saw RGD had a booth at MARCOM 2008 this week... a young man and woman were there and dressed a little _too_ causal for a convention aimed specifically for marketing/communications professionals; ie suits, who are predominantly Public sector.
> 
> I had been reading their handbook on the bus to work/home lately. In it there is great deal of emphasis that is placed on one's image (more-so with respects to how you present yourself when you go for a job interview) but it seemed ironic that RGD representatives were dress somewhat inappropriately given the audience--it looked like they were better suited at recruiting new design students as opposed to educating marketing professionals about the benefits of working with accredited graphic designers.


Yes, their professionalism is lacking. I had my exam canceled on me 3 times, one time I had already driven to TO and was at the building waiting in the cold for an hour. They refunded my exam fees and paid my expenses (parking, gas, food). Had they canceled one more time, that would have been it.

~



MannyP Design said:


> Speaking of the RGD Handbook, has anybody seen the latest edition? Am I crazy, or is the typography just a little odd? Maybe it's just me, but I find the flow and hierarchy difficult to follow.


It's riddled with errors too. :lmao:

I think it has a lot of potential, but you only get out what you put in right? I think if more members were involved with how the organization is run, including myself, it could become more than it has since its conception. It's pretty sad when even the founding fathers (Albert Ing & Co.) renounced their memberships because of the direction it was/is heading.


----------

