 |
|
|
|||||
Since the term design thinking took off in 2000, the once boutique industry of design became a household term. Spurred on by the stratospheric growth of Apple after the iPhone launch in 2007, businesses invested untold sums purchasing design companies and building design proficiency in-house. The cherry on top arrived when McKinsey published a report in 2018 cementing the value of design in leading businesses cross-sector. And then? For the last several years, the design industry has quietly lost some of its luster. Weve published multiple stories examining how the world of business broke up with design, while a generation of design leadership has grappled with the effects. Truth be told, the reality is more complex. Design is still vastly more present within companies than it was decades ago, but it’s certainly been deprioritized during a business cycle that’s championing technology and marketing. Things look so bad because, for a moment, they looked so good. At Chicagos The Future Of conference in early March, dozens of design leaderschief design officers, VPs, and other high ranking designers at companies including P&G, 3M, Ford, J.M. Smucker, Verizon, Duracell, Whirlpool, and GE Healthcaregathered to respond to the provocation: Is Design Dead? My favorite moment was when design teams from Coca-Cola and PepsiCo formed an impromptu circle mere feet from a careful assortment of each companys products on ice. Consultant John Gleasonwho organized the conference alongside David Butler (Coca-Colas first VP of design) and industry vet Fred Richardskicked things off by sharing some disquieting data. In analyzing hundreds for Fortune 500 companies, he found that 39% had cut the top one to two levels of their design organization, downgrading the level or title of heads of design. Nine percent had eliminated half of their design team in the last year. And in 84% of all cases, design reported not to the CEO, but to a specific function (like marketing) or functional executive. And in 74% of those cases? The head of design was not even reporting to the head of their functional unit. [Photo: Andrew Boynton] I was invited as the only journalist to attend the conference, to both share my perspective on stage and listen in to private, frank debates about the state of design and its future. Given the sensitivity of corporate perspectives being shared, I agreed to Chatham House Rule reporting. In other words, I could publish themes and even quote what was said, but for the protection of everyone, nothing will be attributed to anyone. [Photo: Andrew Boynton] Here were my 10 takeaways from two days of talks, though I would offer a significant caveat: Most designers in attendance worked for CPG companies, meaning this information is heavily biased toward that industry, versus what we might hear from technology, UX, product, interior design, etc. For the tl;dr version, let me say: Design is a practice as old as humankind. It can never and never will die. But for the industry to re-achieve its peak relevance, the practice needs to evolve, think bigger, and maybe go get that MBA already. 1. Yes, design is hurting at a lot of companies Companies have slashed back and demoted their design practices. With definite exceptions in the room, the general consensus was that designers were struggling to be relevant, and even have jobs, at their companies. Its a shitshow out there, one person put it, bluntly, while another offered that design is not healthy. 2. Designers blew their big moment Out of 2010, the investment big in design teams promised true business innovation. When one panelist challenged the room to cite a major breakthrough design generated in this era, they were met with crickets. We were sexy, one person put it, but the farther you ride, the farther you fall. The solution to earning back credibility in the meantime is that designers need to do less with less, another suggested, taking a more surgical approach to projects that could meet needs in the business. 3. Were in a down cycle One of the most commonly recurring themes from the panels were about cycles of investment. That for whatever reason, were in a down cycle of design. I agree with this argument, and presented a take of my own: We are in a technological cycle and a marketing cycle. Gen AI drove the need for immediate investment in core technological capabilities. Mature social media (TikTok in particular) rewarded rich investment in data driven marketing campaigns. And in the meantime, design was deprioritized as a less essential job during years of cost cutting layoffs. However, designers will ultimately be the ones that turn AI into functional products, and there are only so many marketing collabs Gen Z will buy before they, too, prioritize more meaningful consumption, and sustainability (hopefully) becomes a global priority again. But for now, companies are abandoning climate pledges to build AI data centers. 4. Designers sell their practice without solidifying their value One theme I noticed was that designers in the room that still boasted rich investment from their companies proselytized the quantifiable impact of their workoften tht they saved their company money, or measurably added brand equitywhereas most admitted that designers were poor at articulating the ROI of their own practice. But you know who is great at talking ROI? CMOs. Marketing leaders can outline their strategy. Design leaders cant, someone said. No wonder design has trouble competing with marketing on solutions. These days, many design teams are answering to a CMO, which is a failure of designers self-marketing inside the company. As one design leader pointed out, they see three paths forward: One, marketing takes over design. Two, marketing and design share responsibilities. Or the third, where marketing reports to design. To most designers, the third option is the most idealbut it also might be the most sustainable for business. Design as a broad practice can contain marketing, while marketing does not naturally contain the umbrella of design. 5. Designers have failed to speak the language of business Why dont designers keep the ear of the C-suite? Enough designers dont speak the language of business, one person put it, flatly. And over two days, several people pointed out that designers simply do not know the proper lingo to be taken seriously inside companies. Designers tend to be spreadsheet adverse as they hang their hats on liberal arts. Especially at large organizations, most business units will be run by MBAs and traditional, business-minded people. This mismatch creates friction to sway a CEO, sure, but the issue compounds as designers really need buy-in from cross functional teams to make things happen. Our gift is synthesis, which is why we need to bring in our own data, said one leader. I spend all my time building relationships [across the company] to get to that data. 6. Design thinking has undercut the value of design Over two days of talks, I witnessed all variety of reaction to the term design thinking. But especially with the fall of Ideothe mecca of design thinkingits clear that the term has often become shorthand for, what an IDEO partner once framed to me as enabling a theater of innovation. Its a methodology to problem solving akin to the scientific method, and its every bit as intelligent as the person wielding it. Yet the design industry has spent two decades rallying behind the term, leveraging it to get buy-in from companies that used it to teach everyone how to think like a designer. But Design thinking is not design, and theres a huge disservice done when educating business on how to run a design thinking session, said one panelist. Namely, it cheapens the practice of design, commoditizing a craft to something you learn over a box lunch. If the height of the [design] curve was the Ideo shopping cart video, we may be in the pit of despair right now, joked another. Not everyone at a company is a designer. Just like they arent all an accountant. Or an IT specialist. 7. Maybe design needs a new name There is no vagary what someone means when they tell you they are an architect. But what does a designer conjure? A million possible things. The term design is a problem, says one expert, noting that weve tried being more specific with CX and UX but each permutation comes with its own costs. The term ‘interior design’ is more limiting than effective, they posit. The terms seem either too big, or too small, for designers to fit any definitional impact. 8. Designs lack of diversity limits its reach Weve reported on the lack of diversity within design for the last decade and, over that time, the numbers havent measurably improved. Noting the majority of whiteness in the room, one designer said, We design for people who dont look like most designers. Ill admit some disappointment by how shocked some in the room were at this statement. (Should we really be surprised to contemplate that design is too white in 2025?) But that doesn’t make it any less true. With the current administrations attacks on DEI, diversifying design is only a greater uphill battle. However, design representation isnt just a path toward equality; its a path toward understanding the needs and desires of more customers. 9. Corporate reorgs kill design strategy Whether its a new CEO or a completely new org chart, the increased instability of business drives an instability of the design practice. Ive had seven reorgs in four years, one designer lamentedwho was not the only one to share such a sentiment during the week. But why is this bad for design? As many echoed through the conference, designers think well in the medium- to long-term, strategizing for the future. When that lead time is disrupted through a change in leadership or a reorgor even just the quarterly whims of Wall Streetany true long-term design strategy cannot take off. As a point of example, CEO Bracken Darrell was cited as turning around Logitech in four years alongside designer Alastair Curtis. And now, as the two have landed VF Corporation, theyve charted a decade-long strategy. 10. Design is still better off than it was 25 years ago While design may be in something of a corporate slump, I continue to believe in its unequivocal value. And I do think its worth taking a little rewind through history. Design was not something most people knew about 25 years agoespecially in the U.S. The corporate world only got its first chief design officer in 2010, when Mauro Porcini (now of PepsiCo) took the position at 3M. We dont know the half life of a CDO yet, one leader pointed out. A CEO is about four years, a CMO is about two years. The truth is that, while design is an impossibly old practice across culture, its serious role within business is still nascent.
Category:
E-Commerce
Its not just tech and media workersand, of course, federal government employeeswho are facing job cuts this year. Layoffs have come for Wall Street, too. Investment banking giant Morgan Stanley is about to lay off around 2,000 individuals, according to media reports. Heres what you need to know. Thousands of job losses imminent Multiple reports over the past 24 hours have revealed Morgan Stanleys alleged upcoming layoffs. The report of imminent job losses of as many as 2,000 workers first came from Bloomberg, which cited multiple sources with knowledge of the matter. Reuters then also reported on the news, citing a person with knowledge of the matter. Besides agreeing on the figure of 2,000 job losses, both reports also state that the cuts will take place across the majority of Morgan Stanleys 80,000-strong workforce. However, one group of workers is said to be spared any cuts: the companys financial advisors, who make up about 15,000 workers at the investment firm. The 2,000 jobs are said to be being culled from the remaining 65,000-strong workforce. Morgan Stanley has not publicly announced any job cuts. Fast Company has reached out to the firm for comment. The cuts are being made about a year after Ted Pick became the companys new CEO and a few months after Pick was also appointed as Morgan Stanleys chairman. If the 2,000 figure is accurate, the cuts mean Morgan Stanley will eliminate approximately 2.5% of its workforce. According to Bloomberg, the cuts are being made to keep costs under control. Morgan Stanley is reportedly experiencing minimal attrition rates, which would normally help control workforce costs as people decide to leave voluntarily. Bloomberg says that those being laid off will be selected on many criteria, including performance, but some cuts will also be based on worker location. A small number of roles that can now be done with AI will also be eliminated. Wall Street cuts jobs amid Trump presidency Its a common assumption that when a Republican is in office, the good times are about to roll on Wall Street. Indeed, when President Trump took office earlier this year, most industry watchers expected his second term to be a positive for Wall Street. However, since Trump took office, the stock markets have hammered due to several Trump-linked factors. The most notable is the presidents ongoing threat of tariffs against its closest and largest trading partners, including Mexico and Canada. Trump has also threatened most other countries in the world with the possibility of tariffs. Many economists fear that Trumps tariff wars could lead to an all-out trade war, which would have negative implications for the global economy, not to mention small businesses. Trump has also supported the layoffs of tens of thousands of federal employees whose terminations have been recommended by the Elon Musk-affiliated Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While supporters say the cuts are necessary to eliminate government waste, adding tens of thousands of people to the unemployment lines will have knock-on ramifications for those peoples families, their ability to pay bills, and their local economiesall of which could lead to broader economic consequences. However, despite the Trump-fueled economic challenges the country is facing, a source told Reuters that the Morgan Stanley layoffs are not linked to the current conditions of the markets. Morgan Stanley isnt the only Wall Street giant to lay off workers since Trump took office. As Reuters notes, Goldman Sachs says it will lay off 3% to 5% of its staff, and Bank of America has already laid off 150 workers in its investment banking arm. Morgan Stanley’s stock price is down for the year Despite the reports of imminent job cuts at Morgan Stanley, its stock has remained relatively flat since yesterday. Shares in the company (NYSE: MS) closed down 0.13% yesterday. In premarket trading today, as of the time of this writing, shares are up just half a percent. But at its closing price of $118.11 yesterday, Morgan Stanley shares are in the red for 2025. Since the beginning of the year, shares in the company have fallen around 6%. The company’s shares closed north of $137 the day after President Trump was sworn in. Still, longer-term investors have seen some decent gains from Morgan Stanley over the past year. In the past 12 months, MS shares are up over 34% as of yesterdays close.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump fired two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday, intensifying efforts to exert his administration’s control over independent agencies across the government.Commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter said they’d been dismissed illegally and would sue to block Trump’s order. They also said they consider themselves still part of the FTC, though whether they will still have access to their offices and logistical tools like email going forward was unclear.Removing Bedoya and Slaughter could free up space on the five-member FTC for new commissioners loyal to Trump and his priorities and policies.The White House confirmed the dismissals. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, a Republican whom Trump designated for the role upon taking office in January, released a statement on X saying he had no doubts about Trump’s “constitutional authority to remove Commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability.”The FTC is a regulator created by Congress that enforces consumer protection measures and antitrust legislation. Its seats are typically comprised of three members of the president’s party and two from the opposing party.Commissioners are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve seven-year terms that are staggered to prevent multiple vacancies at once.The ousted commissioners pointed to past Supreme Court rulings that sought to solidify the body’s independence and only allowed commissioners to be removed for cause.“The president just illegally fired me. This is corruption plain and simple,” Bedoya, who was appointed in 2021 by President Joe Biden and confirmed in May 2022, posted on X.He added, “The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists” but now “the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies.”The White House countered late Tuesday night that other Supreme Court rulings affirmed the president’s “unrestricted” power to remove “executive officers who had been appointed by him.”Slaughter was first appointed to the FTC during Trump’s first administration in 2018, and served as its acting chair in 2021. Biden renominated her for a second term in February 2023. Slaughter said in her statement that the “law protects the independence of the Commission because the law serves the American public, not corporate power.”“Removing opposition may not change what the Trump majority can do, but it does change whether they will have accountability when they do it,” she wrote.In 1935, the Supreme Court held that the president couldn’t fire leaders of independent agencies without cause. Otherwise, the agencies would become more political and less independent.While that restriction was eroded in a subsequent decision that came in 2020, it has largely remained in place.The firings will likely intensify the legal fight around key questions about the extent of presidential powersbattles that could have consequences for other independent agencies, including the Federal Reserve. But the Trump administration has so far been undeterred in its push to expand a president’s ability to remove such officials at will.The president used a previous executive order to give the White House more control over the FTC and other regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.On a subsequent conference call with reporters, Bedoya noted that the FTC was engaged in cases involving tech giants and drug companies and predicted that the move will help powerful corporations while meaning higher prices for consumers.“Who does this attempt to remove us help?” Bedoya asked. “Who it helps is billionaires. And I think it opens the door for corruption and for (a) law enforcement apparatus controlled, not by the law, but by money.”Slaughter said on the same call that she and Bedoya were informed at the end of the day about Trump’s action and that no specific reason was given for the dismissals.“We are not going to go,” Slaughter said. “And we certainly are not going to go quietly.”She added, “Markets should be worried.”“This is a sign that the guardrails are coming off the protections for freedom and fairness in our economy,” Slaughter said. “And it is a sign that honest businesses should be worried about corruption permeating markets.”The issue of Trump asserting greater influence is particularly fraught for the Federal Reserve, an institution that has long sought to protect its independence. Economists and financial markets broadly support an independent Fed because they worry a politicized version would be more reluctant to take unpopular steps to fight inflation, such as raise interest rates.Trump has signaled he will let Fed chair Jerome Powell serve out his term, which ends May 2026. Yet he threatened to fire Powell in 2018 when Powell raised interest rates, a move that can often slow growth.The dismissals of Bedoya and Slaughter follow the Trump administration removing several years worth of online “business guidance” blogs published by the FTC under the Biden administration. According to various snapshots from the Internet Archive, more than 350 blog posts published on the agency’s website were taken down as of Tuesday.The removed blog posts covered a wide range of information, from steps the FTC was taking to prevent harms of AI-enabled voice cloning to an explanation of its lawsuit against Amazon’s Prime subscription program. Blog posts published between 2010 and 2017, under Obama, are still up on the agency’s website.Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, an advocacy group that opposes monopolistic practices, said Bedoya and Slaughter’s dismissals were “illegal and void.”“Independent agencies like the FTC exist to enforce the law as written by Congress and protect the public interest,” Hegde said in a statement. “Not to be gutted at the whim of a president.”Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, the only Democrat on both the Judiciary and Commerce committees, called the dismals “a blatantly illegal act.”“It is another unconstitutional power grab. I’m glad you’re suing,” Klobuchar said on the conference call with Bedoya and Slaughter. “In the end, I strongly believe that you will win and you will be reinstated as commissioners.” Associated Press writer Haleluya Hadero in South Bend, Indiana, contributed to this report. Will Weissert and Christopher Rugaber, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||