Hasta La Ideas

“Searching the internet for the next great toy idea,” says TheGreatToySearch.com, “yours.” Backed by the same company that David Fitzgibbons (see previous toy entry) works for, the website has a simple two-step process: You fill out the NDA they provide you with, then send in your concept.

Their FAQ goes over things like patents and trademarks, the types of toys they do (and don’t) like to see, and their relatively unusual approach: Rather than going out to hawk your product like salesmen, “We don’t go to the companies and hope for a sale. We wait for the companies to come to us as interested parties first,” which they can presumably pull off due to longstanding industry relationships.

And, of course, they also include this sobering note:

…In the business of toy concepts it really is one in one thousand concepts that are company acquired and become a success at retail. For the toy inventor the process is long and hard and patience is the king of virtues for this profession.

To be honest, one in one thousand sounds kind of high to me….

(more…)

Times are tough for Design Within Reach, the ten-year-old retail startup turned publicly traded lifestyle emporium. According to the company’s most recent regulatory filings, quarterly net sales (for the period ending July 4) plummeted 35% compared to the previous year. In the first half of 2009, the company’s net loss totaled just over $13 million, approaching the annual net loss ($14.3 million) DWR reported for 2008. Over the summer, DWR voluntarily delisted from the Nasdaq and sold a 92% ownership stake to a hedge fund, which recently ousted CEO Ray Brunner. Meanwhile, DWR’s early commitment to “fully licensed” reproductions has been supplanted by a growing collection of blatant ripoffs, which are raising legal hackles. So, how did DWR’s reach exceed its grasp? What went wrong? Can DWR Tools for Living, the new 700-product line of covetable accessories, save the company? Writer Jeff Chu lifts the Alexander Girard-patterned curtain in a fascinating look at “The Rise of Fall of Design Within Reach,” published in the December/January issue of Fast Company. We asked Chu for a little backstory on the backstory.

What was the most surprising thing you learned in the course of reporting this story?
I think the most surprising thing was that [former CEO] Ray Brunner had a chair signed by Anna Nicole Smith in his office. It was kind of gauche and amazing at the same time. I tried to think of a bigger significance—modernism was for the masses, right?—but ultimately it was just that he had a chair signed by Anna Nicole Smith in his office. No more, no less.

More seriously, I think the most surprising thing to me was that Ray did not keep his board fully informed. I was really surprised that two of the board members told me that they had no idea they were being sued. Especially in a time when regulatory pressures are so significant, it just seemed weird that he would decide he didn’t have to tell the board. You’d think he’d err on the side of caution and just tell them everything—better to have that cover, right?

Why do you think DWR (and particularly its stores) inspires such…well, strong feelings in people?
One of the reasons DWR inspires such strong feelings in people is because of the confusion caused by their name. They’ve never been about pricing things within reach, but that’s what we all think about—and then of course we’re outraged when we see that the chair we want costs almost as much as than the New York apartment you want to put it in. For people in the design community—and especially for the people I interviewed for this story—the passion was driven largely by what they believe the company was built on. The problem with the knockoffs for many of them was not inherently that DWR is doing knockoffs—you see knockoffs all over the place, and there needs to be more discussion about that—but that there was this great hypocrisy: The company was built on the designers’ names and stories and reputations, and on this righteous platform of educating us about them. Then it replicates their pieces and sells them for the original price. One could say that’s a bit rich.

continued…

New Career Opportunities Daily: The best jobs in media.

At one point or another, most designers working for companies will wonder what it’d be like to break off and do your own thing. Scot Herbst recently found out: As an industrial designer for Silicon-Valley-based Lunar Design, Herbst spent ten years working on projects like Hewlett-Packard’s Touchsmart before branching off to start his own firm.

The move was possible because evolving technology and the global supply chain ecosystem can enable a guy to design products in his San Jose home, have them built in China and be delivered to the United States on time. And this venture was launched with less than $100,000. “I don’t have to sell one billion dollars in inventory to make a profit,” he said. “I don’t have to have a mega officeplex in Cupertino. I don’t have to send a product manager to Asia one week out of every month to make sure everything is going smoothly.”

An agent helped him locate a reputable manufacturer and other partners in China. After a trip to Guangzhou last spring, Herbst worked with Chinese contractors over Web cams and by swapping digital photos across the Internet. Had he launched his venture just a few years ago, he would have had to make a half-dozen trips to China and spend weeks in factories. “The fact that I’ve been to China on only one occasion and I’m launching my product is nothing short of a miracle,” he said.

Herbst’s firm, Kaiku Design, produces non-toxic, plastics-free children’s toys. Read more of his story here.

via mercury news

(more…)

Client: I already know what I want for the logo. It’s a house, with a face, and it’s on wheels with an exhaust pipe coming out of the back which is shooting out smoke in the shape of dollar signs.

LINK via FC

(more…)

MP Ranjan, Professor of Design at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, India writes on his blog that November seems to be Design Thinking month with the number of events and activities taking place. He goes on to delve into a paper on Design Visualisation that he wrote in 1997 which covers much of the basics of what we understand the term “design thinking” to mean today.

(more…)