Are you trying to develop content?

I have taught Design, Art and Media Art theory, practice and process at the post-graduate as well as the graduate levels, so when I spell out specific problems that the so-called “creative-sector” is dealing with in India, I come from a point where I have made a close reading and critical analysis of how some of the the brightest and youngest professionals are trained. The “creative sector” as exemplified by the design and content service providers (henceforth referred to by the term “design services,” “design talent” and “design sector” depending on the context) is facing a value arbitration of sorts.

First, no one can see any impact that the sector might have made at the lower levels of the economy. I mean to point out the not just the small companies but also the one person companies, the proprietorships and partnerships that dot India’s business landscape.

Secondly, this lack of impact is not just because of the short-supply of well-trained design talent in the country but also because design services have been generally priced in a way that the above mentioned level of the economy has not been to afford it. This situation is not because of some fundamental difference in the nature of design services that makes them expensive, but instead it is a kind of inflationary pricing with a similar kind of effect on the field. Inflation triggers three kinds of behaviours: conservative (on the part of all the actors on the field), hoarding (on the part of the consumers), underserved communities (as only the upper-middle class and above are comfortable).

In the context of design sector, the effects and their repercussions can be read as the following conservative (businesses not willing to spend on deign while acknowledging the design problems that face them are less likely to innovate and take risks), hoarding (the design service providers make their services even more expensive as they are not not confident of how much work they will be able to find), underserved communities (as a result, a vast number of potential communities who would otherwise have been consumers of design services end up being underserved).

And so design services become a kind premium privilege that only big companies can afford. And in turn the perception of bigness is further enhanced by the addition of the design layer. So this is a loop which is very difficult to break into — one one hand adding the design layer is neither available nor affordable and on the other hand, the perception that design services are a premium kind of engagement goes on getting exaggerated.

This situation needs to be solved at the eco-system level. Unless a sizeable number of creative workers start looking at the sector and at the field in a more pro-active and responsible manner. The field is very self-serving and any practitioner in the field will openly acknowledge this but will claim that this is because the market is small and opportunities are scarce in India. But this is not true, the smallness of the market and the scarcity of the opportunities only exists because of the lopsided approach that creative workers have towards how they account for the charges and the time needed for their labour. They perpetually exist in a context of scarcity and charge for projects as if that is the only project they will have to rely on for the foreseeable future. Someone who expects to have work only for a day a month will obviously charge more than someone who expects to work every day of the month. The key fact to recognise is that this is a viscous loop and it can only be broken by a bold and pro-active concern for the nature of the field, for the practice and for the people.

What we would like to suggest is a process that we call radical rationalisation.

An approach that starts with a willingness to work every day and not expect the market to subsidise their leisure.