In the current reality, I feel that the importance of creativity is largely understated or, more accurately, misplaced. The use of various creative methods for making a product is important, but many may substitute needless innovation for truly considering what a project might need. While many organizations and individuals understand the role creativity can play in the process of design, it is often used as a feature in and of itself, as a point of innovation or wonder for the future consumer and other industry specialists. Simply, companies often pursue creativity for the sake of creativity itself. In this case, innovation in design can often be either unnecessary or downright detrimental to the role a product must fulfill or its main functionality. A good example of this trend can be seen with many current start-up projects, as well as the products that come out of Silicon Valley. I think that examining an existing product and its failures in terms of design can be most beneficial, as it directly points one in the right direction to think more thoughtfully when designing a product.
Studying failures can often be very fruitful, especially when they are well-publicized and examined by the media. Most infamously, the fail of the $699 cold juicer Juicero can be brought up as a good example (Failory, 2021). The company’s marketing has repeatedly emphasized the importance of innovation and disruption to the current market of juicers, positioned itself as a unique and special piece of equipment for day-to-day healthy living. In reality, however, the main features of the machine were its most controversial and non-consumer-friendly parts. First, the juicer’s design inherently required an internet connection and the use of an app to function and refused to work in any other capacity (Failory, 2021). While the use of the internet, in general, has been embraced by many industries, its mandatory inclusion has only presented a hindrance to daily operation and accessibility in this case. In this case, the use of a constant internet connection only served to bring profit to the company and create an appearance of innovation. Furthermore, the product used pre-packaged packets of juice to squeeze instead of fruit or vegetables one could buy. This design choice also severely limited the options presented to the customers and raised the price requirements for using this juicer even higher.
Additionally, the device was simply not designed to fulfill its main purpose well or to fill an existing niche in a person’s life. It has been proven time and time again that someone can squeeze the same amount of juice from a bag by hand, without having to buy, set up, or use a difficult piece of machinery. The functional aspects of the product were compromised for a simplistic-looking design and a futuristic feel to its presentation. To further exacerbate the problem, generic brand juice packets were not accepted by Juicero, requiring users to buy brand juice for a premium. While most of the features of this product were aimed at innovation and used a creative approach to designing the product, it can be seen that the customer experience was not accounted for in the slightest. By prioritizing the existence of “high-tech” features and a slick design, the creators of the product have not applied their expertise in the correct way. From this example and many others, one can truly understand the connection between creative design, the user experience, and the need to incorporate the product’s functionality into all of its aspects.
References
Failory. (2021). What Happened to Juicero, the $699 Cold Press Juicer? RSS.