STUDIO DESIGN AND BRAND STORY - Part 1 Background

BRAND STORY AT A STUDIO LEVEL

This blog post is one of a series focusing on Brand Story at a Studio level. It’s a diverse topic, which is why we will have a few posts and welcome any discussion points you may have. Studio Workflow were invited to Flow2022 in New York hosted by Pixelz, and this was the subject Founder, Kevin Mason, chose to speak about. Find Kevin here on LinkedIn.

Frank Lloyd Wright SC Johnson Office 1936 (Opened 1939)

Covid has fundamentally changed the Head Office working environment whilst we are potentially still too close to see what the lasting affects will be, we do address this in later posts.

STUDIO AS OUTLIER

We look first at how Studio Design often comes secondary to Head Office design, historically why that may be, and in later posts what direct impact that may have on the Brand story.

The function of Head Office is multi-purpose. A workspace for key teams, HR, C-Suite, and senior level creative decision makers but also a flagship symbol for the brand story, a place to entice clients and celebrity partnerships, and of course to give the wow factor to new hires. Often in a prestigious City location close to public transport links, in a building dedicated to purpose with internal design created by external Architects alongside in-house Property Teams. A flagship space created with purposeful floor plans that adhere both to fundamentals such as building code legislation and best practise.

As we will see later, this is not always true for Content Creation studios, once the black sheep of the brand, and now the most vital element of Brand Story.

Head office, with defined location and structure, vs loosely configured low budget studio.

THE TRADITION OF OFFICE DESIGN

A historical view on Office planning vs Studio planning will better help understand the current situation and highlight how many brands need to pivot to bring change.

Evidence places the first blueprint for offices of the British Empire as emerging in the early 1700’s. Frank Lloyd Wright designed an open plan office in 1906, a concept further developed as ideological movement in Germany. Architects have been designing dedicated flagship Head Office spaces for generations, an early example of a company recognising the need for a prestige statement space can be seen in the lead image for this article, which shows Frank Lloyd Wrights SC Johnson HQ opened in 1939. FLW had lofty goals for this space.

“in the Johnson Building you catch no sense of enclosure whatever at any angle...interior space comes free”

If we took Frank Lloyd Wright’s building as Year 1, we would still have 100+ years of Office design to draw from. A century of learnings, changes, user feedback and failed experiments. Planners learnt from the social dynamics of office space, from time motion studies, distribution and impact on performance of teams, of good and bad Wayfinding, the needs of access for varying levels of physical ability. We have seen the benefits of in-house HR, quiet spaces, and the positive interactions of colleagues in informal areas resulting in deep cultural shifts which have contributed to a common architectural language. Architects played with the idea that a classic Head Office can be a physical representation of the internal hierarchy of the brand. Studies have been conducted on various movements, for example we have learnt that open plan office design decreases face-to-face interaction. Crucially in 2020 we learnt that brands could mobilise change in working structures incredibly quickly to survive and the office can also be at home.

“If we took Frank Lloyd Wright’s building as Year 1, we have 100+ years of Office design ”

But as with all forms of established architecture, dominant models have emerged based on legacy of learning, social protocols and client needs and requests. Interior Architecture has tropes that we all know, the tech Start-Up space with quirky seating, beer fridge, ping-pong, stripped wooden flooring, some glass walls with a slogan and a Founder sharing the same table as the interns. Or in the other direction any number of iconic brick and mortar retail brands, with a classic city centre or campus Head Office with oversize Campaign backlit photos in the lobby, maybe an atrium, denim aproned Baristas and chefs making healthy meals.

THE TOOLS TO DO THE JOB

Its not just the Head Office space that is following a tested formula its the ways of working. Microsoft Word was launched in 1983, two years later came Excel and in 1988 Microsoft Office. For years, after adoption, they were arguably the one accepted office language, even today in the US, Microsoft have a market share of almost 50% of business. Excel is still the most utilised software program and even allowing for the explosion and diversification of task management tools since there is still a common approach to Head Office software.

“Excel is used by an estimated 750 million people worldwide”

We can assume with confidence the onboarding experience would be similar between Brands and potentially even different countries. A day one Head Office starter will get a laptop or workstation pre-configured with suite of tools they are familiar with. The week will probably start with a tour showing where IT Helpdesk is, where the department HR rep is located. The structure of reporting, or managing data and performance will most likely be similar role to role.

Even as an outsider, walking into many Head Offices to meet a Buyer, or as a Consultant is a common and familiar experience and is designed to be so. Keep in mind, as we go now on a little detour, how this compares this to Day One starter experience, or freelancer visit, to an in-house Content Creation studio.

STUDIO AS LATECOMER

E-commerce studios are relatively new concepts, and whilst there are similarities in studios, we are not yet at the point where there is a common language, or accepted way of doing things.

“we really only have approx 20 years of Studio Design to work from”

The mid 2000’s saw the real beginnings of fashion brands selling online, but it is only in the last 10 years in-house content studios, at least as we understand them now, grew into being. More significantly in the past 5 years an explosion of requests for innovative, fast content creation has lead to most brands turning increased focus onto the studio aspect of their business.

Even if we start with market innovator and disruptor ASOS, (formed in 2000) we only have approx 20 years of Studio Design to work from. Before this we had Editorial rental studios, print/catalogue studios and independent commercial studio spaces. The content studio then, especially when compared to the norms and working practise of Office Design is still in its absolute infancy. Add to this the complexity that almost all Fashion brands are notoriously secretive of their own content spaces, whilst being desperately eager to learn how others do it.

What is the real world impact of this? We are not yet at the place of common language and best practise. Architects no matter how talented do not have an agreed knowledge of what constitutes good studio design. This is made more complex by overlapping constantly changing job roles, and then throw into the mix that brands are making ever changing content demands and expectations of delivery.

To further complicate things, camera manufacturers and lighting companies are only now beginning to see the value of the volume content creation industry realising that they need to design products exclusively for this market. Yet without consistent access to studios they also remain in the dark about what is truly required in innovation and product testing. In other words, there is no accepted formula or model that works, even though the outcome, the digital product really only differs from brand to brand in the most marginal ways.

Lets Break it Down

What are the dominant factors?

Location - often the larger studios are located in areas that are great for Truck deliveries but involve long travel times for Talent, with few facilities nearby for lunch, or uninspiring for outside shooting etc. Rental cost is another huge factor here, the cheapest ground rents tend to be on industrial estates or out of town.

Building design for large footprint spaces also falls more into the ‘warehouse’ category, and the internal architecture is prioritised for product distribution and set creation over sense of creative space.

When location is not an option- for many smaller brands the choice is normally that Property Team have found a space no longer in use and want to repurpose it, so basements and office areas become converted into less than ideal studio content creation areas. By default the design of the space is already then compromised.

LOCATION IS BRAND COMMUNICATION

Why is location and suitability of space for purpose so important? Whilst it doesn’t guarantee to cause a problem for the most basic level of content creation where functionality is the main factor, poor choices in location may become a growing factor in a lack of communication or sense of belonging between Studio teams and the Brand. One consistent side affect can be that Senior Creatives do not visit the Studio Teams, and lose touch with content creation which will long term impact Brand Story (and ultimately impact sales and audience). Building type, layout and adaptability can also limit the ability to innovate creatively for the in-house studio teams.

“‘Oh I haven’t been down there but I have heard it’s awful, poor team, but they do a brilliant job…’”

Office Workflow tools VS emerging Studio Tools

Studio Tools are invaluable and we highly recommend them - but they are relatively new, and whilst there are some truly innovative ones on the market, many are still learning from their clients the best way to configure workflows. We are not at the point yet of standardisation, a new Day 1 starter handed a pre-configured laptop with the industry standard software and a way of working is still at some point in the distance. Of course we can argue rightly that there are infinite ways to use Photoshop or Final Cut Pro and if one Workflow tool emerges to be dominant it will no doubt still be used in differing ways. But even differing teams in the same in-house studio can often be found utilising entirely different ways of working. We are still not yet at the point where all major lighting brands create software that has a prerequisite to interact with the main workflow tools.

Innovation with in-house developed tools.

This is the dreaded area for many in-house teams, consultants and freelance creatives. Wary of paying for and opening up closed server systems to market place vendors many brands have tried to find the solution in-house. In principle this could be fine, but content creation demands are always growing, arguably outpacing any innovation that even the most dedicated Dev team can give to the product. This constant innovation is even more at risk if the brand marketshare is also growing and the Dev team is rightly focusing on the external customer experience.

So a system often emerges of hacks, workarounds and bolt-ons of existing tech, warehouse software, and innovations dependent on the needs of teams outside of the studio. The most regular conversation we have witnessed with clients (and that we hear back in the industry) is a brand booking a number of Workflow tool demos then tasking an in-house dev team to replicate the most useful parts. As shortcuts go, you cant build a house by watching Grand Designs a few times and like the most monstrous creations, both the Dev team and the in-house studio teams will get sucked into endless months or trial and error causing frustration. In the worst case key studio team members (Creatives) may be pushed outside of their skillset into Product Testing from a desire to help solve the problem.

What does this mean for today?

Where does this leave us and what can we address in posts ahead. The Head Office experience (preCovid) was fixed, from generations of learning, it was almost universal, tried and tested and Brands knew the importance of smooth onboarding, of dedicated tools and workflows. Brands also recognised the importance of some aspects of permanence, of creating an environment that was not in constant flux.

This is yet to be true of the in-house content studio. We are at the very beginning of the journey, where brands operate a pick and mix approach, taking something from editorial shoots, learnings from Production Line approaches, inputs from the employees that are on the seemingly endless two or three year cycle between studios. But the content needs are constantly changing, and we are at the point where we need to create innovative, creative and future proof spaces.

We have the beginnings of some dominant workflow tools, some truly innovative software and fortunately the signs that a whole community is opening up to discuss shared experience and best practise. Maybe in the future brands will showcase their studio in the way that they are happy to do with a campus or new Head Office.

Why does this matter now?

In posts ahead we will look at the impact of Covid on audience share, the evolving customer interaction and the need for Live Content and how brands can really build engagement (both team and customer) through constant awareness of Brand Story at a Studio Level. We will also discuss further resources to find useful information and industry leaders.