I was considering Communication Arts the other day – one of the remaining publications dealing with the profession of graphic design. It occurs to me that a lot of the material featured in it is irrelevant to the new nature of graphic design.

Let me explain.

It used to be that graphic designers were paid for their ability to “sell” a product or service and for their skills in formal graphic arrangement. And, also, they were the folks who had access and training on the tools for producing design. The general public was uninitiated in the realm of design and advertising and, I believe, it held a sense of magic for them.

Now graphic design is very well understood by the general public. The tools are common and most of the mystery is long gone. Money spent on graphic design and advertising must directly correlate to a measurable result.

This is where I believe that Communication Arts and other similar magazines are falling short in their content. As I look through the magazine, I see lots of great design, beautiful compositions and innovative messages. All of which seem to be produced and included for the inward-looking indulgence of other designers.

Some of my most beautiful designs haven’t pulled very well.

While some of my ugliest designs have been very successful.

What I’ve realized is that “pretty” and “successful” aren’t the same thing. You design for your audience, not for yourself or other designers. Your results determine your success. I don’t want to see juried work anymore. I want to see successful work. Instead of listing who the Art Director, Designer, Copywriter, etc. were, how about listing the cost of the job, the target goal and how well it performed.