EAD7  
DANCING WITH DISORDER: DESIGN, DISCOURSE & DISASTER  
  Discourse Abstracts   CONTACT  
     
 
DISCOURSE117
First Referee: Assıgned Back to Discourse Abstracts
Second Referee: Assıgned Next Abstract
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DESIGNERS DANCING WITH MARKETERS - BUT WHO WILL DANCE WITH WHOM - OR WHO WILL STEP ON WHOSE TOES?

The relationship between marketing and design is often taken for granted as both fields strive for differentiation, communicating brand and product values and being the consumers’ advocate in the business organization. Research, however, shows that in practice there are more confusions and disorder in the relationship than harmony (c.f. Bruce & Cooper, 1997; Bruce et al 2001, Borja de Mozota, 2003, Johansson & Svengren, 2005). This might not be surprising as, although what seem to be similar interests, marketing and design differ in their fundamental position in business. Despite this there is a trend that product (industrial) designers are getting closer to marketing and seek colla­bo­ration with marketing. On the other hand, marketing has moved towards a more qualitative approach and within the context of “postmodernism” might have more similarities with design methods than previously. In a world where design is getting recognized as an increasingly important issue for competing success­fully, the role of designers, in particular product designers has changed. The context in which designers now try to form a role could be seen as a dance floor – many are seeking new, exciting partners, but who will dance with whom? And within which choreographic framework?

In this paper we discuss the two discourses of design management and marketing management in order to achieve a better understanding of the logic behind the development of the two fields. Only few authors have discussed the theoretical differences – and similarities – between marketing and design (c.f Bruce & Cooper, 1997; Kristensen, 20xx; Bruce, 2002; Johansson & Svengren, 2004). The discussion refers to situations where companies emphasize design as a new strategic resource for achieving competitive advantages; both in terms of high quality products and brand values. Globalisation has changed the marketplace and the traditional manufacturing company has replaced the brand as a carrier of its identity. The postmodern consumer appreciates the symbolic values of brands and aesthetic driven consumption. Despite the fact that companies compete with quality and brand values, mass production and strive for low cost superiority remains as a norm in consumer industries. The actual product is increasingly a result of companies collaborating in a network, each contributing with its competence. If innovation is the main core competences to lead the market, then the power in the network and who is partnering up with whom is essential. Within this development process integration of marketing and design plays a major role. Product (industrial) designers have tried to cope with this for long but it is also noticeable that many design companies try to develop a new role for themselves, moving up on the strategic ladder. On the way they meet marketers.

There is a need for a new framework for both design and marketing management, but the aim in this paper is to develop a framework for the meeting of marketing and industrial design contributing to the development in particularly of design management. The discussion is based on interviews with manufacturing companies and industrial designers, which is part of a larger research program on the “New Role of Product Designers”.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments of the 1st referee:
Rejected
Additional comments will be sent to the author
Comments of the 2nd referee:
Accepted wıth revisions
Additional comments will be sent to the author
SENT TO THE THIRD REVIEWER:
Comments of the 3rd referee:

Accepted wıth revisions