Designs on a solution

THERE ARE INEXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES TO A $200K BUDGET COVER

AMatt Smith-Johnson has some suggestions for the federal government on how to spend less than $212,000 on cover artwork for the budget document. few weeks ago, Canadians learned that the Liberals spent an astonishing $212,000 on cover artwork for their 2017 federal budget.

Since then, I have visited the 2017 budget webpage, clicked its “learn more” links, watched the underwhelming YouTube video (3,230 views … I hope the costs of producing it was included at no extra charge), and it still boggles my mind. Why? Well, that’s just it … Why spend so much on something so removed from the day-to-day worries of Canadians? Why spend so much on something I’d bet many readers couldn’t even call to mind?

As a designer myself, I felt like there had to be a better solution.

By nature, we’re visual people, so I understand the desire for an attractive cover. It’s an important document and it deserves our attention. However, as a budget cover, the creation of it needs to be fiscally responsible; doing otherwise seems to undermine the primary communication goal of the thing, doesn’t it?

My proposal: Create a design template that can be easily updated, but which leaves room for a limited amount of creativity. To illustrate what this could look like, I challenged myself to come up with a simple, visually compelling cover template, and created “design rules” that could be followed year after year.

Rule No. 1: No slogans or hashtags. Covers must be free of any promotion or declaration that could be seen as partisan or specific to one party. This simple rule not only keeps the budget document neutral, it saves time and funds that can be better spent elsewhere.

Rule No. 2: Limit the use of colour. Printing has its Sample budget covers designed by Matt Smith-Johnson. costs too, so a two-colour design will keep this humblypriced.

Rule No. 3: Select images that we can use for free. It cost $89,500 to hire models for the 2017 budget cover. In future years, this expense could be eliminated altogether. I limited myself to searching for images available on Library and Archives Canada. I am not sure on the exact usage rules, but I’d assume (or hope) that the government could use its own archived materials for free.

Now I will admit, it took a small amount of creativity to select appropriate imagery. But I am sure an in-house graphic designer would be capable of rising to the challenge.

Consider the images I’ve chosen: 2018 feels like it’s about to spring into flight — an appropriate cover for a prosperous outlook. 2019 is a contact sheet of an elderly man selling flowers — an act of commerce by a small business. 2020 acknowledges agriculture; 2021, infrastructure; 2022, science; 2023, industry … and so on.

The point of this is to show we can have nice things without spending $212,000. Spending that much on a budget cover feels tone-deaf; it’s out of tune with sensible spending. By comparison, I’d estimate that a comprehensive template for the entire budget report (cover and interior pages) could be produced for $18,000 to $25,000, as a one-time fee. In subsequent years, an internal team, small shop, or independent freelancer could produce the budget updates for much, much less.

To be clear: I appreciate the value of effective visual communication. I also feel that creative people deserve to be compensated fairly for their time. I’m not attacking the ad agency that delivered the cover artwork, and I’m not trying to malign any particular political party. I am simply proposing a solution for an-already identified problem.

It can be possible to satisfy champagne tastes on a beer bottle budget. Design solutions like mine provide an example of how our government could produce consistently attractive materials at a fraction of the cost of what taxpayers are currently paying.

That approach seems much more attractive to me. efforts to stretch their lifespan beyond 2025 are impractical, if not unaffordable. Simply upgrading them to meet the NORAD mission requirements would costs hundreds of millions of dollars, take years to implement and pull precious resources away from addressing the current capability gap and ultimately replacing the aging CF-18 fleet.

It is time for the RCAF to start transitioning to a nextgeneration fighter jet. The interim solution of 18 Super Hornets makes both fiscal and operational sense. It was and remains a logical course of action. You can ask the Australians, who have incorporated new Super Hornets into their own fleet with much success. They didn’t buy used aircraft!