 |
|
|
|||||
Who lives in a pineapple under the sea and is coming to a mailbox near you? SpongeBob SquarePants, the star of the U.S. Postal Service’s newest postage stamps. The beloved Nickelodeon cartoon is the subject of a sheet of Forever stamps USPS will release on August 1 in a ceremony in Times Square, and wouldn’t you know it, SpongeBob is a perfect fit. Only the form of a square-shaped cartoon character perfectly matches the function of a square postage stamp the way SpongeBob does. [Image: USPS] The SpongeBob SquarePants stamps were designed by USPS art director Greg Breeding using artwork provided by Nickelodeon. They come in four different designs, two of which cleverly show only SpongeBob’s smiling face filling out the entire stamp. The other stamps feature SpongeBob with other characters from the show, including Patrick the pink starfish, Sandy the squirrel, Mr. Krabs, and Squidward. They’re perfect for birthday cards to grandkids, nieces, and nephews. And theyre worth noting for a legitimately funny design that makes the most of the limitations of a postage stamp’s small shape and size. A sheet of 16 stamps featuring the four designs will be available for $12.48. [Image: USPS] U.S. postage stamps are better known for their depictions of real people, from statesmen like George Washington and Ben Franklin, who appeared on the U.S. government’s first stamps in 1847, to pop culture icons like Betty White and Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek, who got their own stamps last year. Fictional cartoon characters like Buzz Lightyear, Bugs Bunny, and an assortment of Disney villains have gotten the postage stamp treatment before, though, and now SpongeBob joins them. SpongeBob SquarePants, which began its 16th season just last month, premiered in 1999. Created by animator Stephen Hillenburg, the show has inspired Pantone colors, pop art, and fast-food meals, and animation cels from the beloved cartoon are part of the Smithsonian’s collection. But with these USPS stamps, the cartoon has reached a new milestone. SpongeBob is now government-issued.
Category:
E-Commerce
Design thinking, the notion that anyone can solve problems like a designer with the right method and mindset, was a mainstay of corporate America from the 2000s into the 2010s. In recent years, though, the ideology’s effectiveness has been called into question, and it has become one of the most divisive topics in the field. Now it looks like corporations have started sidestepping the term completely. When analyzing 176,000 design job listings for our annual report on Where the Design Jobs Are, we searched specifically for employers’ use of the term design thinking. We found that it dropped significantly year over year: by 9.1% in UX/UI design, 17.6% in product design, and a whopping 57.2% in graphic design. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",(function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}}))}(); We have been scrutinizing the idea of design thinking for years. It began humbly, with late design luminaries including Sara Little Turnbull and Bill Morridge trying to codify the field’s human-first principles (work that would evolve at Stanford’s d.school). But as the term grew popular in the early aughtspresented primarily by the design firm IDEO as part magic, part skill that anyone could learn (just pay IDEO to learn it!)it became the de facto veneer for Fortune 500 corporations that wanted to chase some of that Apple magic. They, too, could attempt a design-forward viewpoint. My primary critique, echoed at some level by Michael Hendrix, a former IDEO partner, is that design thinking is not fundamentally different than the scientific method. The steps involved in design thinking, from forming a hypothesis to testing an idea, match up with the scientific method almost 1:1. And thats greatscience!but not particularly special. My second issue is that proponents of design thinking often frame it as synonymous with design, and to them, criticizing it is tantamount to challenging the value of design itself. But conflating the work of design and the practice of design thinking is a strategic error that has ultimately diluted design overall. I think it’s one of the main reasons that designers admit they havent reshaped business as much as theyd hoped in the 2010s. You dont need to look further than the troubles facing IDEO to know that the industry has fallen out of love with the term. The bottom line is that design is hard, and being great at it requires any number of hard and soft skills (and luck!) that cannot be gleaned from reading one book or sitting in on one workshop. It seems from the job listings we looked at that the design industry is starting to agree. For a fuller picture, I spoke to a number of insiders directly. Here’s what they told me. Design thinking’s loyal supporters Adobe is one of few lingering proponents of design thinking, and it still asks for proficiency in the framework in job listings. Design thinking “is a critical part of how our designers approach problems, and thats true across all areas, including and especially in the AI space, an Adobe spokesperson told me via email. “Our designers build products for people through user-centered problem solving, rapid iteration, and cross functional collaboration. Design thinking is essential to deliver thoughtful, impactful design regardless of the tools or technologies involved. Dropbox takes a similar approach. It still asks for design thinking skills in job listings. Melanie Rosenwasser, the company’s chief people officer, explained to me that it elevates design from aesthetic to strategic problem solving.” But it also asks for proficiency in other design methodologies. For example, we currently have a VP of core design role open where we ask to see demonstrated mastery of design thinking methodology with clear examples of successfully leading teams through the empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test process; as well as proficiency in complementary methodologies such as Double Diamond, Jobs-to-be-Done, Service Design, or Lean UX.'” The tacit supporters Few have the gusto for design thinking that Adobe or Dropbox do. Many companies say they support the methodology, but not so much that they would actually name-check it in their job listings. For instance, SharkNinja continues to stan for the phrase, even though the company doesn’t specifically ask for proficiency. Design thinking is essential to how we hire . . . every product we develop starts with identifying a real consumer problem and solving it through the marriage of thoughtful design and engineering, Molly Delaney, a spokesperson at SharkNinja, tells me. We dont always list design thinking as a specific term in our job postings because its principles are woven into how we describe the roles. Instead of calling it out on its own, we focus on highlighting the mindset and practices that reflect design thinking throughout the job description. Google’s Catherine CourageVP of user experience and data sciencecedes that the company doesnt ask for the specialty because the term isnt as prevalent as it once was. Yet the core idea of understanding user needs, iterating on solutions, and solving problems in a human-centered way continues to be crucial. She explains that design thinking “has been a useful phrase to help the broader population get a better understanding of user-centric thinking within the context of business. Mattel takes a stance that isnt quite for or against the term, acknowledging merely that it’s become something of a distraction from the design process. We don’t use the term design thinking in job posts, but we absolutely center the consumer in everything we do. It’s baked into our process, says Chris Down, executive vice president and chief design officer at Mattel. We try to cut the jargon and focus on what actually drives better outcomesempathy, iteration, and smart risk-taking. The outspoken critics Finally, some companis are staking a flag in the ground and stating what many designers believe to be obvious: Design thinking contains some useful ideas, but its largely a detached from the modern practice of design. Meta suggests that things have simply evolved. Design thinking certainly had its place in emphasizing the value of design and helped provide a structured approach to creativity for those new to the field,” says Joshua To, the company’s VP of product design, AR, AI and wearables. “But there’s merit to the idea that being too formulaic and process-heavy can get in the way of real innovation and improvement on things. A lot of the good design thinking has been metabolized in modern design. . . . We don’t really need a label anymore. Visa agrees that its time to move on, because many of the core principles being pursued by early design thinking advocatessuch as being human-centeredhave been well internalized by now. Its no longer required to ask candidates for design thinking training,” says Visa global head of design Robb Nielsen. “Design needs have evolved to prioritize a broader mix of capabilities including product strategy and systems thinking. Human-centered design remains central to how we work, but its just a part of a more holistic tool kit now. Regardless of your own thoughts on the matter, its been clear that the popularity of design thinking has been waning for some time. And now we have firm data on how corporate America has shifted away from the term, too. But that’s okay. Design has always beenand will always belarger than any one phrase or methodology. Thoughtful, beautiful work will continue, and hopefully at big companies, no matter what they decide to call it.
Category:
E-Commerce
Rarely has Silicon Valley experienced a more profound period of transformation than it has in the past handful of years. The big VC boom of 20202021. The great VC hangover starting in 2022. The global pandemic and its massive impact on tech adoption. The collapse of Silicon Valley Bank. And more recently the advent of AI, which, even in the middle of massive VC pullback in every other category, is driving ever-growing VC rounds at stratospheric valuations. And thats just looking at the money. The social and political side of Silicon Valley also took dramatic turns, with a period of employee activism and embrace of pro-diversity goals, to the right-ward shift of many big VCs and nationwide DEI backlash. Yet in the midst of wave after wave of unprecedentedness, one thing remains troublingly constant: According to Pitchbook data, the share of dollars VCs give to women has hovered around the 2% mark for this entire otherwise volatile period. To better understand the stories behind the numbers, my VC firm, Graham & Walker, surveyed 180 North-America-based female founders this spring, all of whom have raised or plan to raise venture capital. The results, detailed in the report Forged in Fire, highlight the fraught journey many founders face today, and the specific challenges faced by women. 1. Theres a caregiving tax for female founders Fifty-five percent of our founders are caregiversjuggling kids, aging parents, or disabled family members while building companies. Conventional wisdom says this is a disadvantage. And in a lot of ways, it was: caregiver founders were slightly less likely to work more than 60 hours per week, had slightly higher rates of burnout, and were more likely to report sacrificing health and sleep. “Before kids I could force success with a massive amount of working hard, one founder told us. Now it’s harder to work the amount of hours I used to.” Another noted she pays “an insane amount of money to nannies to make my job work.” But here’s the twist: Time constraints breed more thoughtful operators. “Being a parent has made me more efficient, focused, and resilient, said one founder. I’ve become incredibly strategic in decision-making and delegation.” 2. Gender is seen as a major barrier to fundraising “It has been sheer hellthere is no other way to describe it,” one founder wrote about her fundraising experience, capturing the sentiment of most respondents. Forty percent cited their gender as the biggest barrier to raising capital. Many reported being explicitly told to “hire a male co-founder” to increase their chances of success, and a few deliberately did so. I purposely chose a white male cofounder with a business background to make VC easier this time. Why bang your head against a wall when you dont have to? 3. Women pitch to skepticism while men pitch to opportunity Female founders consistently report being asked “What could go wrong?” while knowing their male counterparts get asked “How big could this get?” This echoes Harvard research on gendered questioning patterns and has real funding consequences. “They ask how we’re not going to fail, versus asking males how they will succeed. It’s so biased,” one respondent noted. Another pleaded: “Don’t just ask us what could go wrong. Ask us what could go right.” They’re forced to pitch defensively instead of painting the vision. 4. Female founders are ahead of the curve on AI Despite reports that women adopt AI slower, 86% of female founders are already using AI as an agent, enhancer, and thought partner. All-female teams are actually more optimistic about AI than mixed-gender teams (56% versus 46%). Why the optimism? “AI allows us to do more with less, which is what we’ve always had to do anyway,” one founder explained. 5. Female founders have quiet strengths Forty-six respondents detailed ways in which being a woman is an asset for execution, in many cases as a direct result of the challenges they face. They mention their penchant for prioritizing, hard-learned execution prowess, and extraordinary resiliency. The very experiences that make entrepreneurship harder also make these entrepreneurs stronger. And in direct defiance of conventional advice, female founders dont believe they should be pitching with more hype and bravado like male founders often do. Were more realistic about outcomes and humble about successes, said one founder. But this doesnt mean female founders lack ambition. Speaking brashly, loudly, or aggressively is not a requirement for building a great company, said one respondent. Silicon Valley’s real heroes are hiding in plain sight Most salient among the findings is a stark contrast between the huge barriers these founders face and the clear-eyed optimism with which they face them. Seventy-one percent of female founders said their last round was harder than expected, regardless of whether they had strong traction and prior experience. Forty-seven percent said economic conditions are hurting their business, and 46% also cited political uncertainty under the current U.S. administration as a direct threat. Three quarters have experienced burnout, and more than a third believe their gender has negatively impacted their business success. Despite it all, 72% of female founders are optimistic about reaching their next milestone. In the words of one respondent, I never become less optimistic, I just become smarter at managing the conditions. Part of being a founder is relentless optimism. In this contrast lies a source for inspiration. These women are everyday superheroes: defying the odds, turning constraints into competitive advantages, building businesses by sheer force of will, refusing to take no for an answer. Solving massive problems with limited resources. And proving that grit goes further than privilege. All they ask for is a chance. As one respondent put it, There’s a huge amount of money to be made out of taking women seriously.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||