Designing to measure
As the range and diversity of products, services and brands continues to increase exponentially, the design process is becoming ever-more complex, but sound planning and a rational approach can be the key to success, says Mark Aspin.
Design has a crucially important role to play in the way that we view and interact with the outside world. As our choices of where and how to purchase goods and services increases, so too does the complexity of the design process.
Although we rarely question the need for design and the general benefits that it can bring, the intrinsic value is seldom measured.
What makes design ‘good’? And what makes food design ‘great’? Without a clear objective and a measured result, we are often left with just a subjective conclusion. This subjectivity can make it difficult to evaluate accurately whether or not return on an investment was optimised. We often rely on design agencies with experience, a good portfolio, design awards or other intangible factors to select suitable partners. This situation is not likely to change until a process and budget is adopted to fully analyse the return on investment.
So what makes great design within the in-store environment?
Retail-related design is a process to increase the effectiveness of retail selling space. “Effectiveness” is a broad term and it is important to agree the hierarchy of objectives at the start of the briefing process.
Establishing a sound methodology to assess and critique an in-store environment is essential. It is this preparation and questioning phase that often separates the merely mediocre design from a great design.
Following a clear briefing, the retail research stage is essential – as is a SWOT analysis. This forms the basis of a design proposal which is presented back to the client. This initial proposal helps to clarify/modify the brief to ensure that a broad range of factors are considered which address all the issues highlighted by the research.
Once the design process is agreed, a hierarchy of communication is created. As part of this process, up to 70 influencing factors can be considered. These include: signage/branding; communication; history and experience; budget; timescale; colour; space; shape/form; movement; light/shade; product positioning; materials; shopper profile; processes; environment; finishes; the other senses; and graphics.
Having a structured methodology does not make design a science, but agreeing clear targets and measuring results will enable the design process to justified. Most importantly it also creates a platform of learning and understanding which aids continuous improvement.
Although the benefits of great design are rarely established or communicated openly, where analytical research has been undertaken there are positive results.
Research and experience has helped us established a set of benchmarking criteria which relate to anticipated sales uplift if a best practice design-led methodology is adopted. This analysis only considers the design, construction, cost and positioning of the in-store communication material. Factors such as seasonality, promotion, price, stock-loadings, support activity and compliance are removed. This males possible the calculation of targets based on what ‘great’ design can achieve (see box opposite, below).
The product area or sector makes a huge difference in terms of how relevant these targets are. Then more ‘value-added’, rather than commodity focused, the product range the greater the potential sales uplift. The simple reason for this is that it is much more beneficial to reinforce and differentiate the benefits of value-added products, particularly in environments where they may tend to ‘merge’ together instead of standing out as distinct, autonomous offerings.
Time frame and longevity of materials also makes a difference –as a display or area needs to be kept fresh and relevant to justify the space and position it takes.
An agency’s objective is firstly to create a visual retail language for a brand or retailer. This should clearly position its products or services in a unified and consistent manner.
Design is not just about adding value. More frequently, we are using our combined design and development skills to value-engineer, rationalise and streamline display programmes. To increase return on investment, there is much more onus placed on cost reduction as early as possible in the pre-production phase of a project. We have found that value-engineering alone can often reduce costs by a greater percentage then the procurement and global sourcing process. Typically a target of a 20 per cent reduction, which has saved as much as 2m across the lifetime of some international roll-out programmes.
The combined effects of a strong design process are therefore extremely powerful, typically increasing the rate of sale by an average of 20 per cent and reducing costs by an average of 20 per cent. A best practice methodology such as this partly explains why in-store marketing spend is increasing.
Budget holders are increasingly looking not only to maximise the effectiveness of their budgets, but also measure and justify the direct value that it returns to their business. The continued investment in research and benchmarked case studies will be vital to the future success and growth of instore communication.
Download press release
As the range and diversity of products, services and brands continues to increase exponentially, the design process is becoming ever-more complex, but sound planning and a rational approach can be the key to success, says Mark Aspin.
Design has a crucially important role to play in the way that we view and interact with the outside world. As our choices of where and how to purchase goods and services increases, so too does the complexity of the design process.
Although we rarely question the need for design and the general benefits that it can bring, the intrinsic value is seldom measured.
What makes design ‘good’? And what makes food design ‘great’? Without a clear objective and a measured result, we are often left with just a subjective conclusion. This subjectivity can make it difficult to evaluate accurately whether or not return on an investment was optimised. We often rely on design agencies with experience, a good portfolio, design awards or other intangible factors to select suitable partners. This situation is not likely to change until a process and budget is adopted to fully analyse the return on investment.
So what makes great design within the in-store environment?
Retail-related design is a process to increase the effectiveness of retail selling space. “Effectiveness” is a broad term and it is important to agree the hierarchy of objectives at the start of the briefing process.
Establishing a sound methodology to assess and critique an in-store environment is essential. It is this preparation and questioning phase that often separates the merely mediocre design from a great design.
Following a clear briefing, the retail research stage is essential – as is a SWOT analysis. This forms the basis of a design proposal which is presented back to the client. This initial proposal helps to clarify/modify the brief to ensure that a broad range of factors are considered which address all the issues highlighted by the research.
Once the design process is agreed, a hierarchy of communication is created. As part of this process, up to 70 influencing factors can be considered. These include: signage/branding; communication; history and experience; budget; timescale; colour; space; shape/form; movement; light/shade; product positioning; materials; shopper profile; processes; environment; finishes; the other senses; and graphics.
Having a structured methodology does not make design a science, but agreeing clear targets and measuring results will enable the design process to justified. Most importantly it also creates a platform of learning and understanding which aids continuous improvement.
Although the benefits of great design are rarely established or communicated openly, where analytical research has been undertaken there are positive results.
Research and experience has helped us established a set of benchmarking criteria which relate to anticipated sales uplift if a best practice design-led methodology is adopted. This analysis only considers the design, construction, cost and positioning of the in-store communication material. Factors such as seasonality, promotion, price, stock-loadings, support activity and compliance are removed. This males possible the calculation of targets based on what ‘great’ design can achieve (see box opposite, below).
The product area or sector makes a huge difference in terms of how relevant these targets are. Then more ‘value-added’, rather than commodity focused, the product range the greater the potential sales uplift. The simple reason for this is that it is much more beneficial to reinforce and differentiate the benefits of value-added products, particularly in environments where they may tend to ‘merge’ together instead of standing out as distinct, autonomous offerings.
Time frame and longevity of materials also makes a difference –as a display or area needs to be kept fresh and relevant to justify the space and position it takes.
An agency’s objective is firstly to create a visual retail language for a brand or retailer. This should clearly position its products or services in a unified and consistent manner.
Design is not just about adding value. More frequently, we are using our combined design and development skills to value-engineer, rationalise and streamline display programmes. To increase return on investment, there is much more onus placed on cost reduction as early as possible in the pre-production phase of a project. We have found that value-engineering alone can often reduce costs by a greater percentage then the procurement and global sourcing process. Typically a target of a 20 per cent reduction, which has saved as much as 2m across the lifetime of some international roll-out programmes.
The combined effects of a strong design process are therefore extremely powerful, typically increasing the rate of sale by an average of 20 per cent and reducing costs by an average of 20 per cent. A best practice methodology such as this partly explains why in-store marketing spend is increasing.
Budget holders are increasingly looking not only to maximise the effectiveness of their budgets, but also measure and justify the direct value that it returns to their business. The continued investment in research and benchmarked case studies will be vital to the future success and growth of instore communication.
Download press release
showroom
newsroom
newsroom
awards