Design -- more than quality, technology or top-down strategy -- is the one factor that can make long-term profits for a company. - Inspired by Marty Neumeier, Business Week

I agree that it's a major factor..though I don't know if it's the ONE factor. I think you can see a lot of examples of this in the sneaker community. Nike and Vans have never made shoes of exceptional quality. Nike's got the technological thing going for them, I guess...But simple shoes like the Nike Dunk and the low top canvas Vans, which has been the same for 40 years, have been collaborated on and customized to no end. Even though it's exactly the same shoe being given different colorways, people fiend after buying freshly designed pairs. Entire stores, websites, and magazines exist based solely on the fact that people dig these elements of color, added detail, and concept. I think that each company continuing to push more and more exciting designs, especially Nike, not only builds a sense of desire, but a sense of allure that the company's products have great artistic value. People are willing to fork over money for something they perceive to be artistically valuable. If the product is functional and practical also...you've got a winner. But I don't think you'd be able to sustain long term profits based on design alone. Can anyone think of examples of a company that's done this? (There's got to be someone who will make a case for Apple...)

@Mike, I think it would be impossible not to mention Apple in this discussion; they have to be the most drastic -- and relevant -- example of a company that has used design as a medium for technological advancement, innovation and as a way of engendering brand loyalty. Rather than being simple stylists, Apple designers have been known to work closely with engineers, marketers, and the manufacturers -- those actually involved with building the product. Instead of being involved vicariously, designers can be innovators in the use of new production processes and materials. According to Business Week, during the initial phases of production and design of the iMac, Jonathan Ives (VP of Industrial Design) and others visited a candy factory to study the intricacies of jelly bean-making. To avoid making the external shell of the iMac look cheap, and instead interesting, they worked with Asian partners to develop ways to more efficiently crank out a sophisticated yet quickly assembled product. Jelly bean manufacturing helped them to envision the process in a different way. Through creative and abstract thinking, Apple developers have been able to design beautiful, sleek products, and in the process have collaborated with others to innovate in the manufacturing and engineering processes. And look at the outcome. When the iMac came out, for the first 140 days, it sold one computer every 15 seconds. Why? B/c it looked like it came from MoMA. Apple has sold more than 150 million iPods. So Apple is a prestigious example of what can happen if you privilege design. The rest can come later...

& isn't it just plain sad that people have become so phenomenally shallow that appearance counts more to them than quality, innovation, and longevity of the product. Nothing "green" about this approach to life..

I would suggest that we expand the word "Design" to "Design Thinking". Design Thinking (read Tom Kelley's book "The Art of Innovation")suggests that design is not done by a singular "Designer", but by a meshing of different design thinkers, not the lease of which is an expert in UCD (User Centered Design). Design Thinking also clearly punctuates the need listen and watch the consumer or the user. If you do this AND you make use of these different types of designers, you will be innovating.

I don't care how a product looks if it is effective and efficient. Just as the old saying goes "You can't judge a book by it's cover." Looks can help, but if it's junk, it's junk!

To pick out any "one" thing as "the" thing is just as silly as saying the most important part of a joke is the punch-line. The truth is the punch-line won't work without the set-up. Following this, no matter how beautiful the set-up, with out the punch-line it's meaningless. The very best products meld design and function into a better whole.

Design may provide an immediate attractiveness, which is beneficial given the quantity of competing messages but true sustainability (and profitability) considers product capability and reliability, market pricing and timing. From a company perspective, management, access to capital and financial controls, and infrastructure will determine the long-term growth potential.

The responses to this "Big Idea" are extremely eye-opening! Design seems to be perceived by the majority solely within the realm of aesthetics, that which makes what we use and see "beautiful" or "attractive". However, anyone working within the design industry will share that design is a multi-dimensional process, one that bridges art and science to create sustainable value for both end- user and maker. The success of a brand relies on a well-integrated design process (prototyping) to deliver a product that not only pleases the senses, but raises functionality and fulfills user needs at a level which matches and eventually exceeds the market value.

I agree that design is a requirement for profitability, but it is not sufficient. When was the last time you bought something you liked (and expected to work) and were disgusted when this beautiful object didn't work worth a damn? Were you more or less likely to buy from that company again?

Start with design - yes. Ignore quality at your peril.

The beauty of disorder its the complexity of its design

I think it's important to understand that design is seldom just about aesthetics alone, but is an indicator of many of the characteristics of a company's beliefs and behaviours. Does the company understand me as one of their intended customers? Is the company smart or are they clueless and insulting to me? Do they have taste? Are they aware of trends. Beautiful intelligent design is not a guarantee that a company is likewise intelligent, but suggests they are likely more empathetic in understanding their customers, and will likely be more success (minimize their risk) than those who couldn't care less. You can judge a book by it's cover. We as consumers do it everyday by deciding which products and services capture our attention long enough to explore further. Design is a delivery system –– the connector or interpreter between a company and us as consumers. The phrase * the package is the product* may not be such an exaggeration after all. How successful does a product or service have to get before business is able to grasp the concept that we are affected emotionally by all our senses?

I agree but not every people is willing to pay the real cost of design.