Continued from page 241:

Gelman: And in terms of engineering capabilities he’s probably the most capable designer out there too.

Sagmeister: But maybe that’s why his site works, because there is no design on the navigation so you don’t have try for three minutes before you get into the site.

Gelman: So as a result of this frustration, wasn’t it encouraging for you to try to do something that actually works and to realize some of your ideas?

Sagmeister: Well, I’m not sure. Actually, no. I think the site we are working on was more like "Let’s get something decent out there so people don’t mistake other sites with our work." But definitely there is no claim that this is the way a site should be done. Not at all. It’s just a simple site with a couple of buttons. And of course I tried to make it so it’s not difficult to get in. There is no intro bullshit. But I don’t think that I would have any claim on that. I don’t think that I have this same desire that I would have with print. And I’m sure that has to do with-I just want to say it has something to do with my age. I’m sure it does. When I was 18 with a desire to want to be a designer, I could have I could TV, but I was utterly uninterested in TV-broadcast graphics, station ID’s. That was around but I had not the slightest desire to get involved.

Gelman: So you pursued your choice.

Sagmeister: Yeah, and I think that was always one of the real advantages of staying so small— clients that went in a direction I liked. Of course, if there no print jobs around whatsoever, then maybe I would have to shut my big mouth and say "The Internet it is." But there still are tons of clients around that want the stuff we like.

Gelman: How did you get clients after a year of not accepting any jobs? How did you reestablish yourself as the company?

Sagmeister: Well, we opened in October and there was nothing happening. And it was actually very good for us that there was nothing happening because nobody felt like doing regular jobs anyway. It was not the time, and I’m sure you remember.

Gelman: Nothing was happening for anyone.

Sagmeister: But you also didn’t feel like designing a CD cover. So in that time I think, October, November, December basically all we did was 9/11-related work anyway. All of it. Was all of it for free? I think so. All of it.

Gelman: For whom?

Sagmeister: Well, all sorts of stuff. We designed a dreadful logo for the Concert for New York. You know that big thing in Madison Square Garden.

Gelman: Yeah, yeah. The Statue of Liberty with a guitar.

Sagmeister: Yeah. [laughs] That basically says it all. But I was still glad I was involved. They actually asked if they should take our name off because they realized that we weren’t very happy with it. I thought about it for a day. But I was still glad. We actually went to the concert and it was, "Oh! I was happy to be involved."

Gelman: I remember the concert. I was watching it.

Sagmeister: The design itself, of course, is a different thing.

Gelman: I thought it was very appropriate. I don't think anything design-y or anything more elaborate would work.

Sagmeister: I agree, it should not have been design-y. For sure. But I think that it should have been something that was proprietary, meaning it should have been a logo that the Concert for New York can own in perpetuity. So they can sell T-shirts and baseball caps, generating money for a long time. And I think that was possible. I know enough about rock marketing to know how much money is in there. Let’s say you might or you might not like the Woodstock logo or the Live Aid logo, but both of them are proprietary. The Statue of Liberty is not because it's too widespread, it stands for too many things before that event. So I think that a more original logo could have raised more money.

Gelman: Well, I think it’s arguable. At that time there was so much design produced. Typography exercises with the towers as...

Sagmeister: [laughs] 11? I’m still waiting for the book.

Gelman: That compiles all that stuff?

Sagmeister: Well, I think you could make a whole book compiling only towers as the number 11. You know? Amazing, amazing. I think we as a profession didn’t look very good in the whole response thing.

Gelman: Yeah, I certainly I didn’t want to have anything to do with it.

Sagmeister: Well in any case, by the time January came around things became more normal again and we started doing other work that had nothing to do with charities. And it was alright for us. I think clients just came like they always do. It’s all part of the not-going thing. I’m sadly not very good at being the originator of it. Meaning I don’t originate a lot of business. It just sort of comes by itself.

Gelman: How does it happen? Word of mouth, or somebody reads an article, or sees your book?

Sagmeister: It’s some word of mouth. A little of it is through traveling and conferences where I’ll meet somebody. Some of it is through the book. People who saw the book and loved the work and called. Those are the main ways. The phone definitely doesn’t ring as crazily as it did at the end of the nineties but we are still full, and that is a function of the small studio. A regular studio would have grown to twenty people. We have been open for 10 years and we’ve had nothing but great years behind us. There were times in the late nineties when the amount of times we had to say no became so time consuming that it was a real problem. And while this sounds really showoff-y, it was really dreadful when it happened. Because it was work, and it’s frustrating not just for the people that you say no to, but to yourself because you just took a taxi uptown and spent an hour and a half doing it. I don’t enjoy it. I would much rather say yes. And at the end of the week you don’t have anything to show for the effort. You don’t even have a new client. It’s just you saw somebody and said "No, we’re not that interested." So now it’s actually easier because the phone doesn’t ring all day long and we still have enough work. And the work so far this year‹not all of it, but a good part of it‹I was actually quite happy with. It was all enjoyable to do.

Gelman: How geographically diverse your client base is?

Sagmeister: This year a good part was in Europe. And we had a large client in San Francisco.

Gelman: Who was that?

Sagmeister: It was a software company called Discrete. So most of all of our corporate stuff was outside New York. You know their products: they do Flame and all those high-tech computer systems for the movie industry. Then the other book was also for Germany. Most of the non-profit stuff was in Vermont. And most of the music stuff was in L.A. So basically this year we did not have a single New York-based client. Which is fine with me because it kind of concentrates the meetings. You know you don’t really have a meeting unless it’s really called for. When you fly to a meeting, they are all prepared, we are all prepared, so things tend to be pretty efficient and the rest is done by email.

Gelman: So you see an advantage in working long distance.

Sagmeister: Yeah. It’s actually the first time I’ve actually thought about it, but yes. There is not a single New York client.

Gelman: It’s more efficient than having a client next door who always pops in!

Sagmeister: Well, it concentrates everybody’s time.

Gelman: [Josh’s] laughing because we have a client right next door.

Sagmeister: Oh, that does pop in? Yeah. It was quite enjoyable that way. But I didn’t even realize it all year that I didn’t have a New York client. No complaints.

Gelman: So, what’s next?

Sagmeister: For the studio? Well, I think at the moment, more of the same. Continue that mix. This year the corporate stuff was large companies but we did not design any mass consumer articles. Meaning for Discrete we did brochures and packaging for a very, very specialized niche market. For the Austrian lighting company we did an annual report so it goes to shareholders. And I would love to be involved with a mass market consumer packaging. If it’s possible to improve that. Obviously, I don’t want to design anything that’s crappy.

Gelman: Like what?

Sagmeister: Something that I enjoy. I would love to do chocolate packaging.

Gelman: You like chocolate?

Sagmeister: I love chocolate. As far as the pro-bono level is concerned I’d love to do more on the big project we’ve already worked on but be involved in something where you actually see results. As in do work for a group that agrees on their mission and can actually realize their mission. And then with music it’s easy. Design work for bands whose music I like. That’s pretty easily said.

Gelman: Tell me about chocolate what kind of chocolate do you like.

Sagmeister: Well mostly Swiss chocolate still.

Gelman: Dark? Milk chocolate?

Sagmeister: Milk chocolate.

Gelman: Almonds?

Sagmeister: All. Throughout. The whole range. It’s the kind of chocolate or the kind of almonds or the kind of almond chocolate that I like. There’s some pretty good chocolate now made also in the city. Neuhaus, that place in the Upper East Side? Pretty good. They get pretty close to the Swiss quality now. They hand craft it. More pralines and stuff but their pretty excellent. But in general I still bring stuff over from Switzerland.

Gelman: Well, you can buy it here too, right?

Sagmeister: Well you can buy a limited assortment of the packaged chocolate. But then there is a whole world of Swiss chocolate that...

Gelman: That never comes here. Just like scotch.

Sagmeister: Well, there is a whole world of stuff that’s impossible to bring here because it has no preservative whatsoever it’s basically to be eaten the same day or the next.

Gelman: And that’s the best?

Sagmeister: Yes, by far. If they don’t have to put anything in there. There is a whole world. Sprüngli has day truffles like truffe du jour. They make it on that day and they only sell it on that day. It literally deteriorates hourly. If you eat it the next day taste the difference. It deteriorates as fast as bread. There’s a huge difference between bread that comes out of the oven or bread that is a day old or three days old and it’s the same with that stuff. After 3 days it tastes like the stuff that you buy here. But before it’s quite different. But I have no desire to package that, because it’s impossible. I would have to open a chocolate company. Which I’m not about to.

Gelman: I wanted to talk about style a little bit—how your view on style has changed.

Sagmeister: Well, we used to have this thing here that then fell down from water damage called ’Style=Fart’ and I then thought "That’s just hot air and it means very little." And basically I had to retract that for a couple of reasons. One, I realize that good style makes a much easier entrance for people, provided you actually have something to say. Very much like the person you meet who is well-dressed might have an easier time talking to people than the person who is in rags. So why not take advantage of that? Second is that I think for a long time we jumped from one style to another, which on one hand kept it interesting for us, but definitely kept us on the surface as far as style is concerned. We tried this, tried that, and never really developed our own style. And we found if you do that for a prolonged period of time you basically wind up stealing styles developed by other designers and applying them for your own needs.

Gelman: Since you dropped that philosophy... or how would you term it?

Sagmeister: Whatever. Direction?

Gelman: Do you admit having a style?

Sagmeister: I think that I allowed it to happen. I don’t that we consciously developed it.

Gelman: You are not consciously trying?

Sagmeister: No, but for example, let’s say 8 years ago, if I would have used my own handwriting once I never would have used it again. Okay, used that, okay, jump to something different.

Gelman: That definitely became an element of your style.

Sagmeister: No doubt.

Gelman: And now you’re comfortable in using it for different projects.

Sagmeister: It could also be that we might never use handwriting again. I’m not married to it. Eight years ago I would have thought "No way am I going to use it again." And once I realized what was happening and I allowed it, I said "Okay, let's use handwriting again. Why not? It definitely became a stylistic element of us. No doubt."

Gelman: So taking that sign down, or letting it fall down you admitted that it’s okay to have a style, let it happen.

Sagmeister: I started to think about the whole thing in musical terms. I still like the Beatles better than the Stones even though we worked for the latter and not for the former. Just because they jumped much more from one thing to another and had much more stylistic diversity than the Stones. The Stones were a lot about style but the Stones throughout their career basically stuck to a similar scheme they started with. While the Beatles were unrecognizable by the end, compared to where they began. The White Album and "Love Me Do" have very little in common. You have whole musical genres in between. At the same time, there are people out there in the art and music world who very much stuck to a specific direction. And I love them anyway. Giacommetti would come to mind, or Bob Dylan. Of course they changed content wise, but stylistically they stayed on course.

Gelman: Lou Reed is another example.

Sagmeister: Very good. Yeah, basically he stuck to a four piece rock and roll format throughout his career. And you are kind of glad that he did. I have no desire whatsoever to see Lou Reed in some sort of electronic-trans-techno even though he goes out with Laurie Anderson.

Gelman: Goes out? They are not married?

Sagmeister: No, I think they are still boyfriend and girlfriend.