About this site's lack of design: Yes, it's supposed to look this way — I'm helping create a new sandbox theme for WordPress (see it on GitHub).

Dan Rubin's SuperfluousBanter

Suffering from chronic idiocy since 1977

|

Bullish by Design

As both an econ­o­mist and designer I wel­comed a report by Design
Coun­cil
enti­tled “The
Impact of Design on Stock Mar­ket Per­for­mance
”:

Design is a crit­i­cal com­po­nent of busi­ness per­for­mance. We’ve
heard design­ers, com­men­ta­tors and com­pa­nies say it. But, to date, the evi­dence
for the link between share­holder return and invest­ment in design has been
scarce and anecdotal.”

While I strongly rec­om­mend this report to design­ers and man­agers alike I’m
afraid it is going to make more than one econ­o­mist frown. Design is a crit­i­cal
com­po­nent of busi­ness per­for­mance, no doubt. That said, I have trou­bles link­ing
design directly to stock mar­ket prices, even after read­ing this report. Com­pa­nies
are val­ued using finan­cial met­rics — fac­tual and ver­i­fi­able (behold the accoun­tants
and con­trollers do their work cor­rectly and honestly.)

More impor­tant than try­ing to link design to share
prices, is the rela­tion between design and busi­ness in gen­eral (not specif­i­cally
stock mar­ket per­for­mance). In my opin­ion bet­ter design leads to bet­ter prod­ucts,
and even­tu­ally improved busi­ness per­for­mance. My crit­i­cism is directed at their
method­ol­ogy and the vari­ables used to explain the rela­tion. To use stock mar­ket
per­for­mance as the basis for busi­ness per­for­mance is dubi­ous. More­over, nowa­days
share prices are pre­dom­i­nantly deter­mined by demand and sup­ply. It is
naïve to assume that share prices actu­ally reflect how a com­pany
is really performing.

I would have pre­ferred to see research based on the link between design and
inter­nal busi­ness per­for­mance, such as sales, cus­tomer sat­is­fac­tion and brand
expe­ri­ence (i.e. bet­ter design leads to % increase in sales.) In my opin­ion
share prices are too volatile and include too much noise to con­clude to any­thing.
That said, the choice to use stock mar­ket per­for­mance as a met­ric is obvi­ous and prac­ti­cal,
being freely and pub­licly acces­si­ble information.

Despite the some­what flawed method­ol­ogy, this report is an excel­lent read and,
in all hon­esty, I could not agree more with their find­ings. Design mat­ters!
The gen­eral ideas elab­o­rated through­out this report make sense and have been
researched exten­sively. Design is indeed a crit­i­cal com­po­nent of busi­ness per­for­mance
— I’m just not so sure about stock mar­ket per­for­mance as a good
and reli­able metric.

This item was posted by dhilhorst on Friday, April 23rd, 2004.

Categories:

You can follow comments on this item via the RSS 2.0 feed.

Comments are closed.

One comment on “Bullish by Design”

  1. Posted by Scrivs on Friday, April 23rd, 2004.

    Com­par­ing stock price and any other one fac­tor has always been a fool­ish prac­tice. There are so many dif­fer­ent vari­ables that go into stock price that to just use “design” as one makes the report inter­est­ing, but use­less in my opin­ion. Even more so since it was con­ducted by Design Coun­cil, because it is hard not see it as a biased report.

    Any inter­est­ing study would be to find com­pa­nies that were strug­gling for some period of time then switched their design method­olo­gies and were able to rebound.

    I am not aware of VW’s past, but I would be curi­ous to know how much their com­pany per­for­mance has improved since the release of the new Bee­tle a cou­ple years ago.