Voices

Should we pick design or content?

By Jamal Nasser (China Daily)
Updated: 2010-05-26 07:49

Take your pick: a well-designed product with mediocre content, or a bland-looking product packed with uber-fantastic content.

Fortunately, for all of us, this false dichotomy does not hold water, or any liquid, because more often, good content is also well-designed, according to the realistic sense of economic logic.

Bear with me and take the well-designed Sanlitun Soho for a handy example and compare it with a similar office site that is a me-too white elephant - just a building with inadequate aesthetic message.

Obviously, companies that expend the necessary effort on good design must have decent content that justified the design expenditure in the first place, an economically wise choice because good design attracts buyers, even when there is no (immediate) demand.

This poses a potential problem, however. What if the building or product in question is hiding its content issue behind good design? Now it is true that this sounds like a valid argument worth considering. For two seconds, that is. Here is why: imagine a knock-off gadget and answer is your uncle: a knock-off looks like a knock-off no matter how closely it imitates the original product. The super-conscious in you bleeps and voila! You see the dodgy imperfections that the original product - in its sleek coolness of originality - so generously lacks.

For producers and firms, the remaining problem then is of a sound balance between the two. How much attention should be paid to good design? It depends on how well it serves the content, without losing the originality of uniqueness or vice versa.

China Daily underwent a design change recently that promoted a more streamlined content flow, which was a welcome change as well as a message that this paper does not reside within the comfort of status quo. Solana Shopping Center is another example where unique design has taken a backseat to serve the content better, not just be a stand-alone demand-enhancer.

This is not to say that design is secondary to content. On the contrary, both equally serve consumer needs. Imagine a beautifully-designed building made out of paper, or a mobile phone that looks like a small, plastic brick. These are extreme cases, I hear you. But these also serve as benchmarks. Without good content, fancy design is impossible and non-existent. Without good design, decent content cannot be trusted and discovered.

Like products and buildings, cities can benefit from the balance of content and design, too. For example, Beijing, as the historical, political and cultural center of China, is content-rich - and the design? You have the ancient: Temple of Heaven, Gate of Heavenly Peace, Summer Palace, Great Wall, Forbidden City. And you have the modern: Bird's Nest, Water Cube and the sprawling modern high-rises here and there.

And that's not all. Well-designed sites and housing along the Fifth and Sixth ring roads, would create "double happiness": more affordable housing and new business centers. That is, if the new designs are attractive enough to justify demand. We have already assumed that somehow, good design also conveys quality content and it has been proven in Shunyi.

And the over-looked law of demand - where lower prices attract buyers - would also confirm this possibility. The only other variable is time. Sooner or later, this is what should happen anyway because excellent design would market the content while quality content would justify the design spending by firms.

So if you ask me to pick either design or content, I'd choose both: water and air, mate.