Comments on: The Reflex Blue Show, Season 2, Episode 18: Jason Tselentis Interview

By: Donovan Beery

Donovan Beery — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:14:55 +0000

Billy Fox, last month I was part of a discussion panel, and this topic came up. One of the others on the panel spoke of his experience, which was all large agency work, and he said the big agencies all look for specialization because they have enough work that they need people to be really good at one thing, as that’s basically all they will do there.

I come from the other end, where I was in-house at a smaller department, and now at a really small shop, and generalization is preferred in these places simply because there is nobody else there to do all of the work. Because of my background, and liking to work in smaller departments, I’d recommend the generalization (obviously we all specialize to a point), but I left with a much better understanding of the specialize in one thing only approach.

When companies are trying to get by with fewer employees than they need, like many seem to be doing now, generalization is back in favor, which would explain the job postings.

By: Billy Fox

Billy Fox — Tue, 04 May 2010 23:07:05 +0000

I know this is a little late, I’m catching up on the podcasts, but the discussion about specialization has really tweaked my interest. I’m coming from the perspective of a recent graphic design grad (Spring 2008) who was trying to break into the industry. Mig hit the “nail on the head” when he talked about being flexible. Ever job posting I saw and investigated did not require specialization. In fact, most of the job descriptions were asking for the complete opposite. Employers want someone who can do everything (print, web, video, and etc.) and is willing to learn the new ways of communication. Have a good foundation in print design is essential because the design aspect carries over into every medium.
Specialization is important and requires a lot of talent, dedication, luck, and initiative in order to be successful. People who don’t specialize or would like to in the future, like myself, absolutely have to be flexible and open to working the webs and the prints. You guys are doing and awesome job! Love the show!

By: Jason A. Tselentis

Jason A. Tselentis — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:27:19 +0000

Prescott, I especially like your actor analogy. It’s a relatively good way to frame how designers can perform: flexibly moving from one genre (content area) to another, with the capacity to move between media (radio, television, feature film, stage). This expert notion has been, and will continue to be an ongoing debate no matter whom we compare ourselves to.
But here’s a question: if a designer specializes in one media (print, digital, mobile, film), will their expertise demand higher pay, higher profile work? If they specialize in one content area, will it make them more suitable for the job than a generalist? I ask this question, because it typically comes up during a career discussion. And, as a new creative revolution dawns with sites like crowdspring inviting anybody to design a logo; the small jobs could begin to disappear with only the larger ones left over. (Even the reverse could happen, or worse yet, both scenarios.) Wouldn’t being a specialist make you a better suitor?

By: Steve Hartman

Steve Hartman — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:24:47 +0000

Great show. After looking at the Aol. new identity, I’m sticking my neck out there to say that I like it. Initially, I was skeptical, but after viewing the Fast Company article, and accompanying YouTube video of the identities usage, it grew on me faster.
One note, I’m shying away from calling it a logo, and will refer only to it as an identity, as it makes use of multiple elements to communicate the brand image.
I like it.

By: Donovan Beery

Donovan Beery — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:49:38 +0000

Prescott, you are correct, people use that term ‘expert’ far too early and far too often.

By: Prescott Perez-Fox

Prescott Perez-Fox — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 16:15:32 +0000

Awesome discussion. As someone with a graduate degree in design, I wanted to interrupt the conversation after pretty much every sentence.
Also, the matter of specialisation is always going to be a debate. Some will say that jack-of-all-trades designers are the best kind, because they are versatile, but I have seen first-hand that when times are tough, companies go for the super-specialised. When Jason used the example of a “web designer for healthcare” that illustrates the rather dangerous phenomenon of being specialised both in a media and in an industry. While I agree that that experience in a sector is helpful, I don’t think we _need_ this level of specificity â€”Â employers, and clients, are way to picky because of this.
There is a certain open-mindedness required in our profession. We have to know that like actors, we’ll play many parts over the years. Similarly, clients and bosses need to understand that we _can_ play different parts, and they should audition us for our talents in general, not solely for our previous roles.
While I agree with nearly everything Jason has said (and written), I have to warn anyone who uses the word “expert” (or “expertise”) anywhere near a discussion about education. Having a tilt toward a subject does not make one an expert by age 22. I wish this were so. As is said, there’s just too much subject matter to take on in only those years.