CR Blog
Twelve: The Magic Number?
Posted by Patrick Burgoyne, 3 April 2009, 9:38 Permalink Comments (26)
Nearly 60% of UK design consultancies employ fewer than five people, yet two of the world's leading practitioners say 12 is the ideal number of staff to have. So, what is the best size for a design studio?
The question arose at yesterday's Podge lunch – an annual event that this year marked Lynda Relph-Knight's 20 years as editor of Design Week. Neville Brody and Erik Spiekermann were having one of those 'so, how are things with you?' conversations that, right now, tend to involve much nervous touching of wood and finger-crossing. So I asked them, what do you think is the right number of people to have in a studio? Both, without hesitation, gave the same answer - 12. Why? It means you are big enough to take on major projects but small enough to stay in control: any larger and you have to start taking on the kind of work that you'd rather not do just to way the bills.
The question of how to grow (or, this year, more likely how to cut back) without undermining your business seems to be a constant problem for design studios. As we reported recently, Ian Anderson felt that one of the contributory factors to the demise of the Designers Republic was that it had grown too big and had ceased to be the company that he wanted it to be. It's a familiar tale.
According to the Design Council, 82% of UK design studios have ten or less employees, so the prevailing view is definitely against Spiekermann and Brody. Many of the leading lights in graphics have surprisingly modest operations - Farrow, for example, is just three people, including Mark Farrow himself.
So, in these times when everyone is considering cutting staff numbers and how to re-shape their business, what is the optimum size to be?
26 Comments
This is very interesting. We are currently a team of 3 and work with a range of selected freelancers on larger projects. We are young and hence we are learning and growing very quickly. It's good to know that a target for the "perfect number" is only 12 as this seems very manageable.
A new vision is that all "employees" are freelancers working under the same roof. This keeps the costs low and the thinking fresh. It's almost like picking a 5 aside football team from your squad of 12 for each match or project! This is beneficial for the founders as the costs are low and the experience is high, and also for the freelancers who are given the flexibilty to bounce between projects. As long as deadlines are hit, why can't we fleet between project and areas of design. In this fast paced world we can make the use of technology to help keep projects on track and don't necessarily need to be tied to our desk!
That's my pennies worth...
Michael
http://www.studio-bodhi.com
2009-04-03 10:15:03
I would have said 10 but 12 is close enough. For more than that it puts an incredibly high pressure on the new business side of the business to keep all those bodies busy and right now it is too risky to do that
2009-04-03 10:28:19
I think it starts like this, two designers meet one visualiser one copywriter (roles vary). They form a partnership = 2. Get a bit busy employ another designer = 3. Ouch all this paper work employ an all in one receptionist, book keeper and PA = 4. Two partners start looking for bigger projects...and win one employ a jnr designer (you can't new biz and design) = 5. Now you need a specialist (media, PR, strategy etc) = 6 . once you employ your first consultant you get bitten by the bug and employ another = 7 , The partners have a choice for there roles, project manage? design? or new biz? or employ?... So you employ the new biz person = 8.
I think design agency's can stop growing at 5 and then 8 but if your new biz person works out and you get lucky. I think you can surge passed 12. As your business is no longer just a design practice you have more strings to your bow.
2009-04-03 11:13:29
I looked into this for Design Week a few years ago and what surfaced was quite revealing. Now whenever I meet the head of a studio or design company I always ask how big are you now and how big will you be next year? Almost without exception they plan to be a bit bigger next year, then stop growing. But (aside from recessions) their plans to limit their size just don't seem to happen. They slowly grow bigger but in an unplanned way, responding to short term needs not bigger visions.
What came out of the article was this. That there are certain standard sizes that creative groups seem to get to. Each level changes them radically. As you point out, under half a dozen in number is usually the first size, then around 12 is the next, after that it's around 30, then 60ish and then 100+ One of the reasons put forward for having certain size standard groupings is the way we interact with people as individuals. There are only so many people we can have any intimate relationship with. If you just work with Ted and Francis, you'll know what they do on the weekends, but if you have to say hello to 70 people everyday, you are hard pushed to find out what time it is let alone what makes them tick beyond the meeting room.
The theory goes then that cecause we behave and communciate differently depending on the size of the team, a Johnson Banks will have a very different feel to an Interbrand or an Imagination, which presumably needs more formal process and structure and loss cross-studio intimacy, if that's the right word. Interestingly, what seems to happen is that the big guys end up actually operating small internal teams. Then though, there is the problem of pointing everyone in the same direction, and managing the extra red tape of bringing the smaller teams together.
Michael Johnson made an illuminating comment at the time, he said the company was determined to stay small. Why? 'Because we don't want to feed the monster..'
2009-04-03 11:47:16
RS = 8
2009-04-03 12:13:23
Having worked in a honking-huge advertising firm myself, I can see the need to be in a smaller firm to produce quality work. During that time I was reading a book on Harwell Hamilton Harris (architect in the USA) and a transcript of his speech hit me over the head ///
An excerpt from the book Harwell Hamilton Harris by Lisa Germany...and in a speech given in 1960, HHH says "How does my office differ from a large office? It differs, to begin with, in having fewer collaborators, consultants, engineers, interior designers, landscapers, business managers, public relations advisors, job-getters, promoters; we are therefore more free from design by office committee. We are also more free from the restrictions of pecuniary self-interest; there is no office accountant calling us to task for spending more time on a job that the fee justifies,"
///
Always loved that quote.
2009-04-03 13:16:51
Having worked for a range of design companies (unintentionally an almost perfect selection of sizes) from multinational giant to small partnership, I'd have to say small is beautiful, and the HHH quote above posted by Nirav summarises it as well as I could.
What's changed for the better since the '60s is that we don't lack in design/ writing/ production/ financial collaborators (when needed!), and technology has made that possible. In the same way we no longer need to be placed in 'the big smoke' but still feel at the centre of things. What we don't miss is the 'monster' - or indeed the office politics!
Do we need to be twelve or more to lose our fear of big projects? I don't think so, or at least not twelve on one monthly payroll in one location, thank goodness.
2009-04-03 14:59:11
In a conversation I recently had with the aforementioned Erik Spiekermamn, he made the point that even in big design companies (companies that no longer call themselves design companies) the work is nearly always done by small teams of no more than 4-5 people. Odd therefore that so many clients think they have to go to big studios and pay lots of money.
2009-04-03 16:36:40
Do it all yourself. That way, you never need to worry about feeding anyone else's mouth but your own. I did it for 11 years so I know it can be done.
2009-04-03 17:02:25
De La Soul reckon it's 3.
2009-04-03 18:46:27
Excellent views; I was starting to think we are a small studio becouse we are only 12 but now :)
2009-04-03 18:58:43
such an interesting question/conversation. Firstborn is a shade under 50 and each time we broke thru a certain level it was painful. At one point our goal was 15-10...I would say that 60 is our max(we have a 6 person office in LA)but if we stay at this level and can continue to deliver excellent work thats good by me
Mike Exon's post echoed our experiences...12...then 30(we stayed there for years) and now pushing towards 60.
to me it is about finding not only the right talent but as many people without ego as poss. obviously easier said then done.
we still lose great people to the big boys(just lost one to akqa)but my hope is we r big enough to give people a chance to grow and stay with us for a long time
2009-04-03 22:52:21
Currently working on a book about a 1960s ad man who had this all figured out a while ago. Had an interesting chat with Jeff Goodby about it when I was doing my research:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r51s8MZOVqM
For a bit of context here's some more about Howard Gossage for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of learning about this fascinating eccentric:
http://www.lacreativeclub.com/gossage.html
With a team of less than 12 he helped found Friends of the Earth, launch Marshall Mcluhans career and have great fun during work that he cared about.
The great thing is that in the current climate, combined with the efficiencies that technology offers us all as creatives, there are some fantastic opportunities to keep small, productive and whilst not rich, quite content financially.
2009-04-03 23:16:56
running a company of any size isnt hard if you build it right.. (build it with a solid partner) build it with passion, show this passion to the team, only bring people who want to work hard and share the enthusiasm, employ talented creatives and ask them to manage their own projects, you dont need project managers / account managers / PA's or any non creative managers, (that’s the job of the owners).. for me the optimal size is as big as you can go without losing the fun social element of the company.. if we find people who show the above, it’s a no brainer to bring them in, get a good team and the work comes to you. Work should be fun, work should be exciting, companies should grow and develop, that’s the exciting part, get bigger, make friends and go global.
2009-04-04 10:10:42
This is really interesting. It is interesting how we always say, ‘we’re going to get to X and then put the lid on it’. Our agency has grown rapidly in the last year, going from 5 at the beginning of 08 to 11 at the beginning of 09. We spent about 6 years (of the 10 we have been in business) floating around 5 people, then the sudden jump. I always maintained I wanted to get to 10, as i felt this could still be managed without politics, yet we could take on the big projects too.
It is comforting to hear that 12 is a good number. I believe we have the potential to go much larger but I think that important decisions are going to have to be made with regard to the type of work that we want to do, versus what we are going to need to do, in order to sustain the business.
2009-04-04 13:43:45
I find this very interesting as our aim is to grow to 10 employees and then use freelancers if required. Myself and my business partner both left the large agency life to avoid politics and grow a more personal business. In my experience business is all about people so to loose the people factor is a no no. I can totally understand why both Erik and Neville promptly answered the question with 12.
You can always count on a Podge lunch to generate such an interesting conversation.
2009-04-04 17:19:48
As the conversation happened at this year's Podge Council lunch on Thursday it is worth noting that the reason I started the Podge lunch 15 years ago was to encourage designers running small agencies to be able to sit with designers running large agencies and discuss the relevant matters of the day.
The very first Podge Council lunch had Alan Fletcher and Marcelo Minale, both no longer with us sadly and many owners of design agencies who had just come through the recession in the early nineties. Some of the companies that suffered most were the larger businesses who had property issues, cashflow etc etc. That first lunch was for 30 owners of design agencies who enjoyed being able to chat about shared experiences and help each other out.
Lovely to see that 15 years later and in a room with 160 design heads the same conversations are going on in little huddles everywhere.
Thanks Patrick for spotting it and listening in to the conversation, real shame there were not several clones of you listening to similar conversations around The Arts Club during the day and evening.
Great fun.
Phil Jones
http://www.podgelunch.com
2009-04-04 17:59:41
I think Adrian Shaughnessy is spot on. Big clients pay big money for big design companies and end up with a small team at the end of the day. Why not start with a small team with big ideas?
Michael
http://www.studio-bodhi.com
2009-04-05 20:08:58
i think it all depends whether you're a soccer player kind of a guy, or a table-tennis player kind of a guy
2009-04-06 02:55:49
There are undoubted benefits in braking the "12" barrier. You can employ more specialists, work across a wider area of creative activity, take on more ambitious projects and run jobs in parallel.
Part of the key is to have good producers and support staff to remove the crap from a working day and leave you to get on with the fun stuff. In my opinion the role and contribution of good producers and admin is often overlooked when worshiping at the altar of 'the creatives'.
We are sat at 12 staff + a handful of regular freelancers and part-timers and have the growing pains of being caught between to 12/30 rule but will be adding 10 folk by the years end - and I'm really looking forward to it.
We still plan to work in small teams of 4 to 5 but with the muscle that the bigger studio brings - better shared resources, someone looking after new business, day-to-day running, more fresh faces and new challenges for the wizened old timers.
Another issue is where staying small limits the personal development of your staff. It can be a comfort for founders (and I suspect most of the posting above are from owners as opposed to employees) but what opportunities does that leave for your staff?
There are only so many posts to progress through, so it becomes a question of reward... great work unencumbered by red tape or bullshit is no doubt a bonus, but that will eventually turn financial. Designers grow old, some have kids, they buy things. Unless your profits can increase with their expectations people will move on or do their own thing.
I'd be interested in a discussion about how the culture of a design agency changes over time... and how have contributors managed (or resisted) that.
2009-04-06 12:02:05
I'd agree that 12 is a magic size for creative business.
It's still small enough to avoid cliques, yet large enough to feel full and vibrant.
2009-04-06 12:07:53
Although our clients range from small (2) to large (50), the mode would be, yes, about 12! This was 'a few staff more' not so long agao; in recent years there has been a shift to slightly smaller business models over the past few years, mainly down to multi-skilling (eG: A Designer and an Artworker becomes a single Designer / Artworker), and now we are seeing a Graphic Designer and Web (front) Designer become a single Graphic / Web Designer.
May not be good for those without cross-skills, but multi-skilling does go some way to providing more flexible and adaptable businesses.
2009-04-07 16:59:38
One.
2009-04-07 17:00:42
5
3 designers, one owner and his dog.
2009-04-08 08:53:15
From Bryan Edmondson at SEA
Ideal size. Well we were talking about this in the studio a few weeks ago and yes the idea of 12 came up - in fact this has been passed onto me years ago by Tim Fendley when SEA was in its youth... I always thought that was the goal to reach, being at your peak ability to attract large projects yet not be deemed too big to take on smaller maybe more creative challenges.
Over the years SEA has varied between 7-10 people which has totally depended upon how busy the studio is, however SEA has tended to have a core set of people of maybe 6. We never take on freelancers, opting only to work with ex-SEA men/women due to their understanding of our own studio culture.
Over the past decade, studios seem to have reduced in size, but I don't think there is any need to boast about a certain size as most projects are based around a core set of people and you can then outsource a team if the job is required... such as planners and strategic help etc.
I suppose everyone is different. Personally I prefer a smaller group of people - a tight knit of genuinely talented people rather than excess baggage - this has always been my belief and not prompted by the current economy. Having a fixed number in mind to me is a bit of a formula and the realities of running a design studio don't necessarily rely on formulas, though I can understand the logic of 12... maybe I could suggest another thought... multiples of 4? 4, 8, 12, 16 etc. This only applies if you are interested in formulas!
By the way, SEA has 8 members!!!!
Patrick Burgoyne
2009-04-08 15:04:49
Great topic. My personal belief is that companies will continue to be smaller and partner more and more with their peers.
2009-04-28 07:50:45
Get the RSS Feed
Most recently commented
| Pretty Ugly or plain ugly? (30) |
| Olympics ticket designs revealed (26) |
| The story of Pentagram (21) |
| Brand New Debris Quilt (2) |
| CR June 2012 issue (8) |
Most read
| Olympics ticket designs revealed |
| Freehand: the software that wouldn't die |
| The story of Pentagram |
| Lance Wyman in Norwich |
| FF Chartwell: a graph-making font |
Subjects
| Advertising | (1082) | |
| Art | (420) | |
| Books | (268) | |
| Digital | (437) | |
| Graphic Design | (1225) | |
| Illustration | (676) | |
| Magazine / Newspaper | (215) | |
| Music Video / Film | (742) | |
| Photography | (368) | |
| Type / Typography | (268) |
