Our first contributor is Noble Cumming, a New York based designer with years of experience in design for print, advertising, and signage.

Pushing Production to the Front of the Line

By Noble Cumming

In today’s graphic design process, sustainability is born of the creative minds of the art directors and designers, early in the concept phase. But the top-down management model of today’s graphic design studio, branding firm, or ad agency is not always compatible with the demands of sustainable design. To change this without jeopardizing jobs, the first step to turning sustainable concepts into sustainable results is to ‘push production to the front of the line.’

The production team should be part of the creative process, from tip to tail, rather than brought in at the end. This is often proposed, but rarely implemented. It’s not a surprise because typical studios use a top-down model where orders are passed from one stage on to the next. This process resembles a traditional product assembly line and there is little incentive to disturb a workflow already in motion.

But, creatives make decisions often lacking the research required to insure sustainable solutions. Proper production techniques, material sourcing, and life cycle analysis are usually solely in the domain of the production department. Bringing them into the earliest stages opens the team to research and execute based on the goals of the project. This is every bit as important as beta-testing or client demographics and the results could be significant.

For example, by researching production options before a business card concept is designed, a design team could reduce their cardstock consumption by about half.[1]  This is an easy way to address the Creation metric (EN.02) of the Living Principles scorecard.[2]

500 standard sized business cards printed on 130lb card stock can be printed on 63 sheets of letter-sized paper; that weighs about 2.95lbs. By eliminating bleeds the same number cards can be produced on 50 sheets, or 2.34lbs of cardstock. Bleeds are waste and by eliminating bleeds, paper use is already reduced 20% (metric EN.06).[2] Further, by changing to the standard 26” x 40” sheet size, only 4 sheets of paper (2.08lbs) would be needed. This 30% reduction in material use is already well above the “Material Value” requirements made by Walmart in their packaging scorecard.[3]

But, what is the need/use (PE.04)² of a business card today? Does the size matter? Because taking the last 0.5” off the end of the business card would reduce the paper use to 3 sheets (1.56lbs). In three minor moves, the same 500 cards are produced using 52% of the paper. When expanded to an entire company’s workforce, this could significantly impact the budget for business cards (metric EC.03).[2]

Integrating production thinking early in the design process can bring some big changes, even on small projects. With production sitting in it’s usual spot in the process, it is usually too late to justify such changes creatively or economically. By inviting the production team in at the beginning, there is a far greater likelihood that concepts will be vetted and survive implementation.

But the results go deeper than creative solutions. Production teams are expected to be apathetic to a project and its outcome, only to engineer the final product. A production artist creatively invested in the design enables the Long View metric (PE.05) and its outcomes to flourish. When positively engaged, they will perform better, work passionately, and create a better environment for all.

According to the Living Principles site, A Production Artist is “an unsung hero” … “saddled with the logistical responsibilities of sustainable communication design.”[3] Imagine what could happen to sustainable projects, if their input was considered at the beginning.

Tweaking the traditional design process to bring production into the beginning of the process. Production artists have solutions for many of the design challenges sustainability brings. The earlier they are involved, the better.

————————————-
RESOURCES

1. http://www.re-nourish.com/?l=tools_projectcalculator
The product calculator gives an estimate of how much paper it will take to produce a given print project and gives suggestions for minimizing waste. Re-nourish members can also catalog and reference their calculations for subsequent projects. 

2. http://www.livingprinciples.org/framework/roadmap/
The introduction to the Framework and Roadmap of The Living Principles.

3. http://news.walmart.com/news-archive/2006/11/01/wal-mart-unveils-packaging-scorecard-to-suppliers
A press release from 2006, detailing the various metrics for Walmart’s sustainability initiative to reduce packaging across its global supply chain by 5 percent by 2013.

4. http://www.livingprinciples.org/resources/words-to-know/
Different frameworks and theories in sustainable design, plus a handy dictionary of terms on the Living Principles site.

————————————-
CREDITS

Noble Cumming is an industry-seasoned designer and team leader, specializing in design and innovation for some of the world’s largest brands. Focused on advancing graphic design and sustainability while creating happy clients in the process. He holds a BFA in Communication Design from Pratt Institute and an MA in Sustainable Design from Minneapolis College of Art and Design. He lives in a Brownstone in Clinton Hill with his wife Nancy, their two children and a cat.

“From the Trenches” is a series of ongoing articles by today’s sustainability professionals to help move all of industry toward a more forward-acting, and sustainable, operating model.

“From the Trenches” is coordinated by Wendy Jedlicka, CPP, faculty at Minneapolis College of Art and Design’s Sustainable Design Program (mcadsustainabledesign.com), and UW-CEOEL’s Sustainable Management program (sustain.wisconsin.edu).

Bicycle vendor selling knives and knife sharpening services. Images courtesy of VelaWala.org.

India’s many millions of bicycle and rickshaw vendors embody the entrepreneurship, sustainable mobility, social innovation and thriving local economies, that a sustainable city needs.

As an ecosystem, they’re also part of the metabolism that makes a city smart.

That said, cycle commerce is a challenge for a city’s managers. Many different actors are involved in bicycle commerce — often with differing or downright conflicting agendas. Managing this kind of urban constellation is hard.

In Europe, the official focus is more tightly on couriers and freight. As Kris de Decker points out in an excellent survey, cargo cycles are fast, efficient, clean and quiet. The European Union, which is funding the 12-country Cyclelogistics consortium, calculates that 50% of all parcels delivered in its cities could be delivered by cargo bike. That’s a huge market, and interest among municipal authorities, and the mainstream freight industry, is growing. (See also Tod Litman’s report Evaluating Non-Motorized Transportation).

But turning opportunity into action is proving slow. Even the smartest cities can be slow learners.

Bicycle vendor selling mops, brooms and cleaning supplies. Images courtesy of VelaWala.org.

In India, one reason institutional support is sluggish is that bicycle vendors are perceived to be an inconvenience rather than social and ecological assets. Municipal authorities are also under pressure to eliminate street vendors in the name of modernization — prompted, behind-the-scenes, by property developers and formal economy retailers.

In Europe, a lack off technical information seems to be more of an obstacle. Transport for London found that “a reluctance to use cycle freight is due more to a lack of information on the vehicles and options now available, rather than entrenched attitudes against cycle power as such”.

On February 8, a Doors of Perception workshop which took place in Delhi on Cycle Commerce, and was part of this year’s UnBox Festival, looked for ways to remove these obstacles.

The event built on the momentum of an earlier project, Velowala.org. In 2008, when this writer was commissioner of the main French design biennial, Cité du Design, we asked Avinash Kumar (who is also an organizer of UnBox) for a proposal on “how to communicate, to an audience of 90,000 people, the variety and vitality of people selling things from bicycles in Delhi”. The objective, we explained then, was to “sensitize the design crowd in Europe to the fact that bike-based commerce is neither backward, nor predictable”.

In response to that invitation four Delhi design teams — Quicksand, BLOT, Codesign, and BOX — created an installation in France that was accompanied by a rich media archive, Velowala.org, that is still online.

Mobile moped mechanic. Images courtesy of VelaWala.org.

The workshop at UnBox had three priorities. The first was to remind ourselves of the amazing environmental and social gains that follow when services are cycle-based rather than depending on motorized vehicles and costly buildings.

Our second objective was to map the cycle commerce ecosystem of our host city, Delhi. Which actors and stakeholders need to be involved if bicycle commerce is to flourish?

Our third objective was about future action: what designable actions could enable such an ecosystem to flourish? Do we need an online catalogue of products and business models to aid decision support? Is micro-finance for independent vendors a priority? Are new forms of governance needed if the diverse actors involved are to collaborate?

The workshop explored these opportunities with a steady eye on future action. It’s not just about awareness raising — we want to begin changing things for the better.

We organized the workshop jointly with Arjun Mehta. Arjun founded Shuruat, a social design lab, in 2011. Shuruat, in collaboration with Ratna Nidhi Charitable Trust, is launching an ecosystem that enables low-income, physically challenged individuals to gain mobility and financial security by running street-vending businesses on tricycles. The key components of this ecosystem include: (a) hand-powered tricycles with add-on modules that allow users to run various types of mobile businesses; (b) street-business training courses; and (c) micro-credit systems.

John Thackara is a writer, speaker and design producer, and director of Doors of Perception. In addition to this blog, he is the author of twelve books including In The Bubble: Designing In A Complex World and Wouldn’t It Be Great If…. People seem most impressed by the fact that he once drove a big red London bus.

John lives in the small market town of Ganges, in southern France, with his wife, Kristi van Riet and his dog, a Carne Corso called Dora.

Before he started blogging here, John Thackara sent out a monthly email newsletter, Doors of Perception Report, which was also about the restorative economy, social innovation and design.
Contact Information:
john@thackara.com
thackara.com

Some of the best ideas are the simplest ones.

The environmental and social costs of global business water use add up to around $1.9 trillion per year, according to new research by Trucost for the TEEB for Business Coalition, Natural Capital at Risk: The Top 100 Externalities of Business.

Some of these external water costs already are being internalized and hitting bottom lines: Just last year, the worst drought in the United States in 50 years sent commodity prices skyrocketing. Companies, especially those in the food, beverage and apparel sectors whose margins and supply chains are tightly linked to agricultural commodities, can use the true cost of water to get ahead of the trend of external costs increasingly being internalized through regulations, pricing or shortages.

Gaps in pricing and supply create opportunities

Most raw materials that businesses depend on require water. However, a gap already exists between water supply and demand, and by 2030 water demand will exceed supply by 40 percent.

Part of the problem is that water is not correctly valued, and this is creating perverse market incentives. For example, around half of China’s industrial output and 40 percent of its water-intensive agricultural products are produced in 11 of the country’s driest regions, comparable in water scarcity to those of the Middle East. Because the price of water in these regions is among the lowest in the world, the market creates an incentive for retailers and manufacturers to outsource services to this water-scarce region, despite the high risk of drought or damage to long-term water supplies.

Applying the true cost of water for business optimization

Trucost estimates the true cost of one cubic meter of water ranges between $0.10 where it is plentiful and $15 in areas of extreme scarcity (see Figure 1).  Businesses can take advantage of this wide range and align water use with its availability to evaluate new infrastructure investments, procurement strategies and product portfolios.

For example, a business can include the true value of water — not just its current market price — alongside traditionally costed items in capital budgeting and adjust the net present value (NPV) of cap-ex investments. Figure 2 shows how applying economic values to projected water consumption and deducting the “environmental costs” from future cash flows can reveal which option has a lower risk. For instance, Yarra Valley Water found that each m3 of water conserved delivers $6 through avoided damages to the environment. So, selecting Project A, which uses 1 million m3 less water annually than Project B, would save it $6 million in environmental costs.

As another example, water valuations can be used to identify strategic sourcing partners and supply chain collaborations. We analysed the water intensity of fruit used in a range of juices. The valuation illustrated the risks by fruit as well as by region, and identified opportunities to shift fruit production to an orchard in a less water-scarce region.

Water valuations also can be used to map commodity flows and quantify risks across a company’s brand portfolio or business unit. Figure 3 illustrates how water valuation can highlight unsustainable water use across multiple FMCG product categories. Somewhat surprisingly, the product categories with the largest water footprints were not always the same as those with the greatest water risk intensity. In this case, water valuation and value chain hot-spotting pinpointed opportunities to invest in new technologies and strategic sourcing efforts to manage commodity risk.

Understanding the true cost of water is a growing global trend in corporate natural capital valuation. This month, 90 companies are joining a WAVES Partnership in the U.S. to explore natural capital accounting. Forward thinking companies like these that take account of their natural capital dependencies will benefit from a more complete picture of the most effective ways to allocate water and other resources that are under steadily growing pressure.

This complimentary webinar will outline and explain the key changes to the GRI framework for sustainability reporting found in the latest version (G4) published in May 2013 and will consider the implications for organizations using these guidelines.

Agenda

1. What is GRI G4? – A basic outline
2. What motivates companies to use GRI and in particular the new G4 version?
3. What are the big changes?
4. How can companies make sure they are in a position to use GRI G4?

For more information and to register, visit our GRI Webinar

Mihajlo Arsovski, poster for 6th International Festival of Student Drama Groups (IFSK), 1966

In one of my earliest posts for Design Observer, following a trip to Slovenia, I wrote about how little designers in English-speaking countries know about the growth of graphic design and visual culture in central and eastern Europe after the Second World War. English-language graphic design history surveys tend to stop at Polish posters, which have long been known in the west, and when local design historians write histories, it’s rare for them to be translated into English.

Last year, during a visit to Zagreb, the Croatian capital, a colleague and friend, Dejan Kršić, showed me the catalogue, with Croatian text, for a big exhibition I had just missed at the city’s Museum of Contemporary Art, titled “Socialism and Modernity: Art, Culture, Politics, 1950-1974,” with sections on the modernization of the Yugoslavian state, architecture, art, visual communication, and socialist popular culture. Kršić — author of a monograph about Mirko Ilić — wrote the chapter about graphic design and the examples he revealed to me opened another window on this engagingly unfamiliar history.

The book is now available in an English translation, though at this stage it can only be obtained from a Croatian site; it really needs to be on Amazon. Kršić is an art historian by training and he works as a writer, editor, publisher and translator, in addition to his activities as a designer. He also collaborates with the highly regarded Croatian curatorial team What, How and for Whom (WHW). If he were based in New York or London, he would be celebrated widely as a notable figure. His chapter is a thoroughly researched, detailed and important contribution to the wider understanding of graphic design in the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which lasted until the country’s break-up in 1991). It’s also a slightly mournful tale in which the optimism of post-war design pioneers committed to design as an agent of social planning, and to the humanization of the working and living environment, eventually loses out to the imperatives of the market and the bureaucratic logic of growth. Perhaps that outcome sounds all too familiar?

Mihajlo Arsovski, film poster for Love Dossier, or the Tragedy of the Switchboard Operator, 1966

Here, to give the flavor, I’m showing several pieces of work from the 1960s and early 1970s by Mihajlo Arsovski, just one of several excellent designers featured in Kršić’s chapter. Arsovski wasn’t completely unknown to me; we showed a few largely typographical pieces in Eye way back in an overview of Croatian design. Only the intro to that article is available and I can find nothing substantial about him in English online. In 2011, a book about Arsovski was published in Croatia but, irritatingly, that isn’t sold by Amazon either, and I don’t have a copy. Kršić is working on a monograph of his own and he showed me some of his extensive collection of pieces by the designer. Arsovski’s work from this period combines pop culture references (see the wry Mothers of Invention album cover quotations in the Pop Express poster below) and a collage style with carefully composed structures in which everything locks together tightly; the typography has an exhilarating sense of playfulness, like a pictorial element in its own right, as well as visual drama.

Mihaljo Arsovski, poster for the play “Luv,” Theater &TD, Zagreb, 1966

Mihajlo Arsovski, poster for the play “Acting Hamlet in the Village of Mrduša Donja,” Theater &TD, Zagreb, 1971

“This was phase two of the high-modernist period, considered late-modernist or even mannerist by some authors,” writes Kršić. “However, our view is that his work from that period — given the choice of typefaces and the manner of using typography, collage processes and, in contemporary words, sampling motifs by combining elements of high and popular culture — can best be described as postmodernism in a time that was not yet familiar with the term.” That means that Arsovski, by 1966, despite the differences of culture and context, was engaged in a pre-postmodernist questioning of modernism much like that seen at Glaser and Chwast’s Push Pin Studios, or in the “Carnaby Street” pop graphics of “swinging” 1960s London.

Surely, I thought, someone this good must have been recognized at the time by the Alliance Graphique Internationale, despite the awkward political barriers. There were Polish, Czech and East German AGI members in the 1960s, after all. Sadly not, it seems. It’s hardly news that we need to trample over the boundaries of conventional historical accounts in search of other graphic histories. Here is another fine example of what we might have been missing all those years.

Mihajlo Arsovski, centerfold poster for Pop Express no. 9, 1969

Mihajlo Arsovski, disco poster for the Students’ Center, Zagreb, 1969/70 (not in book)

Rick Poynor is a writer, critic, lecturer and curator, specialising in design, media and visual culture. He founded Eye, co-founded Design Observer, and contributes columns to Eye and Print. His latest book is Uncanny: Surrealism and Graphic Design.

Sustain, an AIGA Iowa Green Salon, is an introduction to ways that creative minds can implement sustainable practices. Design with the future in mind!

*A complete list of local and national sustainability resources will be posted on our website shortly.

Starbucks is one of America’s most iconic brands for many reasons. The company transformed coffee culture and taught U.S. consumers to appreciate better coffee beans and traditional coffee beverages long on the menu in Europe. In doing so the Seattle-based coffee giant not only built a large economic machine, but inspired countless smaller chains and independent shops to open across the U.S. and even the world; as they say, imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

On the environmental and social fronts, Starbucks has offered plenty of leadership. Its focus on procuring ethically sourced coffee and palm oil, and its recent acquisition of a farm in Costa Rica for use as a farming research and development center demonstrate that the company is serious about confronting long-term challenges that coffee growers and workers face in a hyper-competitive and increasingly hotter world. And of course here in the United States, many single mothers, students, small business owners and young professionals have had peace of mind because of the generous health insurance coverage the company offers workers.

But the area in which Starbucks is lagging is where the company can truly lead and transform consumer behavior: the stores’ overwhelming waste.

Let’s start with the paper cups. Sustainability writer Marc Gunther estimates that consumers go through as many as four billion of them annually. True, Starbucks has made progress since the days when it double-cupped its hot drinks — in January, the company introduced a $1 reusable coffee cup and claims it has made progress on recycling on all fronts. By 2015, Starbucks aims to have “front-of-store” recycling at all of its North American stores; in the stores that currently participate, recycling bins are clearly labeled so customers know where the correct places are to place their waste.

But if it were only that simple. In the California city where I live, a few afternoons spent telecommuting in various Starbucks locations tell a different story. Many customers clearly do not pay attention to the individual bins’ labeling, so plastic cups end up in the trash bin while food waste ends up in the recycling bin. True, some shopping centers and office complexes have co-mingled recycling.

Nevertheless, Starbucks’ supposed recycling program is more about metrics and looking responsible to stakeholders than immersing itself in the discussion over waste in a world facing more resource constraints. As several Starbucks employees explained to me (on condition of anonymity), the disposal and eventual recycling of trash from individual locations is out of Starbucks’ control. If a shopping center does not have recycling pickup, then that blue bag of recyclables ends up in the trash. And at another Starbucks location I visited, recycling is only picked up on weekdays — so if the recycling bin becomes full during a busy weekday, the recycling bag is tossed into the waste bin and will end up in a landfill. Starbucks takes little responsibility for its waste, leaving it up to property management companies and municipalities instead.

And Starbucks still has a long road ahead towards changing consumer behavior. As Mr. Gunther pointed out, consumers would be more inclined to use a reusable cup if they were charged an extra 10 cents or so for a paper cup, instead of receiving a discount per Starbucks’ current practice. Starbucks argues such a policy could come across as punishing, but considering how vaunted the brand is among its consumer base, a pilot program experimenting with new tactics to increase recycling would be worth the effort — and help Starbucks put its money where its mouth is.

As for the much-publicized $1 reusable cup, Starbucks employees explained its rollout has made little difference. In fact, one location had the cups for weeks but could not sell them because the lids had not arrived. Now several stores in the area do not even display the cups, which may be just as well: Employees said their quality was so low that at best they lasted only 20 or so fill-ups of piping hot coffee.

Starbucks could also try asking customers the timeless question, “For here or to go?” If the customer requests a drink “for here,” he or she could receive the drink in a mug or glass — or at the minimum, baristas could take an additional step and confirm whether customers want their order in a reusable mug or glass. In fact, I did not even know Starbucks has glasses at their locations until I forgot my reusable cup for a recent iced tea order. In fact, most consumers don’t know, and I suspect many new employees at Starbucks do not realize, that glasses or mugs are available as an option — but they are often an afterthought at many Starbucks locations. And on a busy day, most end up in a sink waiting to be washed.

Which leads to Verismo, Starbucks’ coffee pod machine. Other brands’ plastic pods are already creating mounds of municipal waste, and most companies’ pod recycling programs have been met with skepticism by other sustainability writers. And when it comes to more responsible disposal, Starbucks again punts: The company claims pods are recyclable, and they are — if the paper, metal and plastic components are separated. But Starbucks instructs consumers to “confirm with your local recycling or solid waste authority” (as if any would), and states the pods’ components “may be recyclable.” As for the compostable coffee grounds, the company is silent on what is done to separate them from the pods.

What’s unfortunate about Starbucks’ tepid response is that the company’s brand reputation positions it as an organization that can lead on waste reduction and other sustainability efforts. If it took a more aggressive stance, not only would its brand reputation — and perception among skeptics — improve overall, but such action would also motivate other restaurant and fast-food companies to come up with innovative programs that would help clean up the planet — and in the end, save these companies money or even create new revenue streams.

…

Leon Kaye is founder and editor of GreenGoPost.com. A consultant and business writer, he frequently writes about sustainability efforts in the Balkans, renewable energy, and water issues.

Companies continue to rank low among global institutions when it comes to sustainability leadership, though a few companies — mostly the usual suspects — continue to rise above the others, according to an annual survey being released this week.

If that sounds like damning with faint praise, it is. According to the 2013 Sustainability Leaders survey (download – PDF), produced jointly by GlobeScan and SustainAbility, the private sector outperforms only the world’s national governments when it comes to effectively addressing sustainability challenges. That is to say, their second to last.

Still, a handful of companies — and one in particular — are highly regarded. Unilever continued its reign as the top-ranked company and actually increased its score, according to the survey, which is based on the responses of 1,170 “qualified sustainability experts” polled earlier this year. Companies are named on a top-of-mind basis — that is, they are asked to name leadership companies but aren’t given a list from which to choose.

Another top-tier companies was Patagonia, which “catapulted to the No. 2 position on back of strong gains in last year,” according to the study. Interface and Walmart round out the top four, with 10 additional companies clustered roughly with similar rankings (in descending order): GE, Marks & Spence, Puma, Nike, Coca-Cola, Natura, IBM, Google, Nestlé and Novo Nordisk. Puma was notable for being the only one not to have appeared on the previous rankings, done in 2012.

In addition to naming names, respondents were asked to include a few words about their rationale for the companies they picked. “Commitment to sustainable values” was the primary reason a company was cited as a leader, consistent with previous surveys. Transparency and communication, integration into core business model and environmental, waste, and water management rose in importance in 2013.

“The really big thing is that Unilever has just rocketed farther than anyone else, so there’s a lot less diversity in the rankings,” said SustainAbility research director Chris Guenther, in assessing this year’s results. “In the past, what we’ve seen is that companies go up to the top of the list when they make a big splash, and stay up there for a couple of years, then inevitably taper off and fall down the list when someone else captures imagination anew.”

That hasn’t been the case with Unilever. “There’s nothing terribly new about its Sustainable Living Plan, almost three years into it,” he said. One reason for Unilever’s top spot may be that “no one else has come along with anything better,” Guenther surmised.

There is broad consistency in leadership opinions across the world. The primary distinction is relative opinions of corporate and NGO leadership. Corporate leaders rank higher than NGOs in Europe and Oceania, but far lower in North America, Latin America/ Caribbean and Africa/Middle East.

Over half of experts are unable to name a sustainability leader from the developing world. Brazil’s Natura and India’s Tata were the only companies that garnered more than 1 percent of mentions from experts in Europe and North America.

So, if companies aren’t seen as leaders, who is?

Leaders in the scientific community, NGO leaders, leaders of multinational organizations — but, most of all, “social entrepreneurs,” who are now perceived as the sector advancing the sustainability agenda most.

That seemed curious. “I think people reflexively think that’s a good institutional form, even though people can’t point to specific social entrepreneurs that are making a difference,” Guenther explained. “I think what they respond to is the label.”

Note to big companies: Embrace the mantle of social entrepreneurship and you just might win some hearts and minds.

A few ways to share, via AddThis

Sometimes, as we go through our digital days, it feels like everything we encounter on the Web or through mobile apps is optimized for sharing. This seems so normal now that I hadn’t really given much thought to it until a recent conversation with Phil Libin, the CEO of Evernote. I interviewed Libin for a story on the personal-organization application’s notably devoted following, for Bloomberg Businessweek. That story is in the forthcoming issue, and just went online; you can read it here.

This is the bit that’s relevant to Libin’s thinking about the mania for share-focused digital design:

Evernote has always been aimed explicitly at the individual, and that’s been a core part of its appeal in an era where every new online product seems reflexively “social.”

“What you put in Facebook isn’t who you are,” says Libin. “It’s what you want some people to see. And what you put in LinkedIn is certainly not who you are; it’s what you want the professional world to see.” Libin suggests that the addiction to a particular strain of “viral” growth has led to a drastic overemphasis on digital design for extroversion. As a guy who describes himself as too introverted to win over his high school chess team, Libin says that’s an oversight. “What you put in Evernote is who you are,” he continues. “We used to say in the beginning that Evernote is not social. In fact, it’s antisocial; we don’t care about your friends.”   

Libin added that this attitude was “liberating,” from a product-design perspective, but that bit got cut, as the article pursues other themes beyond this notion. But the idea of whether design-for-sharing has gotten out of hand is something I’ve continued to mull, outside the Evernote context.

Clearly introvert vs. extrovert is not a pure either/or proposition – most of us have some personal continuum. Just as clearly, enough of us are extroverted enough to make Facebook and Twitter into products that are judged to be extremely valuable.

But I think Libin is onto something worhtwhile in suggesting that digital design has become overly extroversion-focused. Consider something like Spotify. I remember becoming aware that it was taking off in the U.S. specifically because of items popping up in my “news” feed on Facebook: this or that friend was listening to The Smiths, or whatever, and I was being told about it because of Spotify. It seemed good for Spotify that I was aware of its use by my friends. On the other hand, I soon associated Spotify with the idea of broadcasting musical taste. Maybe that appeals to a certain number of people, and I certainly get why Spotify’s “sharing” functionality is good for its own brand recognition and good for advertising-driven social-media platforms whose business model depends on collecting data about users. But I wonder how many potential users either don’t care about that particular functionality — or even find it off-putting.

The point here is not to pick on Spotify (which has many other appealing attributes, etc.) but  rather to suggest that we’ve reached a point where it’s worth asking whether shareability has become a distraction from designing products that appeal to and serve not just marketers or venture investors — but users.

The Bloomberg BusinessWeek article takes a broader view of Evernote, its users, and its prospects, so check that out here.

And, hey, share it with your friends.

Rob Walker is a contributing writer to The New York Times Magazine and the author of Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are. His writing has appeared in many magazines and newspapers.