My annual “lose 10 pounds” goal is almost achieved at 8 pounds lost . . .  I still have 2 days to go so there’s a chance.  Then again, perhaps not, since I just had cheesecake as my dinner.

So with the idea of resolutions and goals I have a new plan of action for achieving my 2012 goals.  I recently listened to an audio book called The 10X Rule by Grant Cardone.  The guy is a bit wacky but I like his thinking.  (He reminds me of Jim Cramer, that guy on Mad Money that always seems to be yelling directly at me.)  The whole theory of “10X” is to supersize your goals to be so big that it sounds insanely crazy.  He doesn’t believe in setting realistic goals because it doesn’t keep us motivated long enough to achieve them.  In our minds they become not that exciting so we tend to give up. We don’t go into it with the intention to give up but our psyche just seems to go there and before we know it we’ve lost interest.

I’ll share an experience as to why I think there’s something to this idea.  I had a client that I needed to sell table top exhibits for last month.  I’ve been selling these table top exhibits for various events for them over the past 2 years.  I only needed to sell I think 7 or 8 to hit the budget number but because of a shortfall in previous month’s income, we decided to go for 12.  (I’m not sure who set 12 as the goal but since it’s my story I’ll say it was me.)  Twelve tables fit in the room comfortably so that was my new target.   So calling the same ‘usual suspects’ of potential exhibitors I was feeling discouraged as I was just trying to sell 1 at that point.  (I should point out that this client’s industry was particularly hard hit with the economic downfall.  I’m not that bad of a salesperson.)  Though I knew calling the same ‘usual suspects’ wasn’t the best way to sell the exhibit spaces I was stumped as to who I should be calling.

Then, I had an unexpected moment of rejuvenation.  One unexpected encounter sent my mind racing in a whole new direction of prospects and the sales pitch they needed to hear.  It worked.  With renewed energy and a fresh list of contacts I started making calls.  I also set my new “Awesome Goal” – yes, I called it my Awesome Goal - which was 18, the absolute maximum number of tables we could accommodate.  So where do you think I ended up?   I sold 15 and had 17 tables filled; one we gave to a non-profit and one we gave away in exchange for a free service the company provided at an earlier event.  We had several new companies participate, plus I left the client with at least 4 more companies interested in exhibiting at the next event.  They didn’t participate this time only because of scheduling conflicts or too short notice – not lack of interest.  Two companies were also seriously looking into becoming members.  All that because I set an ”Awesome Goal”.

So what changed?  While a fresh perspective on the marketing of prospective exhibitors got me going again I became almost obsessed, energized and refocused on that “Awesome Goal”.  I had the list of companies taped to my wall and checked off each one as they sold.  It was exhilarating as I got closer to that “Awesome Goal”.  I didn’t start out with the intention that I had to sell 18 tables but it seemed almost so unreachable that as it started happening something else took over and it just happened.

I heard this similar concept in an article by Martha Beck (she writes lots of things for Oprah’s website and O magazine) and she referred to it as a “WAG” or a Wild-Ass Goal.  So as we head into 2012 think about your Awesome Goal (or WAG if you prefer) and think about what you’re going to do.  Are you going to play it safe with the realistic goals or go for it with the Awesome Goal?  I already have my list ready and it’s AWESOME!!

Happy 2012!

Yes, it is a bit time consuming to type up these procedures with enough detail for them to be truly useful, but in the long run you will be glad you took the time. Not only will your company benefit from this resource but your own work will be done with a greater efficiency.

Foldfactory.com has a great FOLD resource titled 60-second Super-cool FOLD of the WEEK. Have fun folding!

The reason why I have described Prezi as the antithesis of PowerPoint, is because the tools that are provided are incredibly simple and limited. This constraint, I believe, prevents non-designers from creating a visual disaster. I would predict that the average user has a 90% chance of creating a good presentation, were as with PowerPoint, I would estimate the average user has a 90% chance of creating something awful.

Within these very tight constraints, a designer can open up infinite creative possibilities using Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop. When I say “infinite” I am referring specifically to creativity—Prezi is light like a motorcycle not heavy like a tank. In my limited experience with Prezi it seemed important to keep the file sizes small—I wouldn’t recommend using it for a large slide shows that use hundreds of hi-res images. So don’t worry PowerPoint and Keynote (not that you would) Prezi will not create a revolution and replace either of you.

My experience with Prezi was like a breath of fresh air, although it did take some getting use to—it is an unusual environment to work in—but once you get the hang of it, it is fun.

I did learn a few things during this brief experience that I will do differently when creating another Prezi. I created an abundant amount of custom graphics with embedded text. This became cumbersome when edits were made by the client to the text. I would have to make the text edits in Illustrator or Photoshop, then export the files, then import and replace them in Prezi. I couldn’t simply update my links. Next time I will try and rely more on the text tool in Prezi for areas that have more text, in this case it was Q&A.

Another issue arose when I realized the speed of my computer was a great hinderance. Since Prezi is Flash based—how fast you move within the environment is dependent on how fast your computer can view complex Flash movies.

Overall my experience with Prezi was fun and refreshing—I encourage everyone to at least give it a try—I doubt you will be disappointed.

Below I have included 2 videos that explain how Prezi works.

If you are having difficulty selecting a font, try the Periodic Table of Typefaces. This is an excellence resource that can help the expert or novice typographer in selecting a typeface for a given project.

For the novice there are a few more consideration that are necessary:

First, let us clarify the difference between the words, font and typeface. Typeface refers to a “family” or a group of letters that have the same style, for instance: Arial, Helvetica, Times, or Garamond. Font refers to the more specific description within a typeface such as Bold, Italics, Roman, or Oblique.

Next, consider how your audience will read composition. If it is running text or paragraphs on a printed page, try not to get fancy, be considerate of the reader, oldstyle typefaces such as Times, Garamond, and Caslon will be you best choice. They are the easiest to read for running text. When someone is reading running text, the mind sees each word as one image, that is why one can read through a paragraph quickly. It is the shape of the word that your mind sees, not the individual letters. This shape is primarily defined by the ascenders (e.g. the line of the lowercase “d”) and descenders (e.g. the line of a lowercase “p”). When you use “all caps” you have destroyed the one word image, and the mind must slow down and decipher each letter. The moral of the story: never use all caps in a paragraph.

The vast majority of typefaces are designed for titles. This is because titles have few words in them, so fancy letters can be read because your mind can slowly evaluate the information in each individual letter, and differentiate them by their characteristics. This is also why it is acceptable to use all-caps in a title, since your mind can take a moment to decipher the information letter by letter.

My constraint of choice is the “cube” or as some refer to as the cubicle. At first look, the “Freedom” of the free-lance would seem a far superior choice to the graphic artist. The free-lance has the freedom to create a work environment that reflects all that is conducive to creative thinking—choice furniture, quiet music, and few interruptions. Although the cube may not possess the environmental qualities that promote creativity to its fullest, I will argue that the constraint of the cube does provide for high-quality work that is better suited to the client. Design, by definition, is problem solving, and—boy—do you have to problem solve in the cube. The tempo is fast, interruptions are commonplace, and the workload is intense—what better environment to force a designer to create efficient and effective systems that allow for good, consistent solutions. It is working within these systems that excellent work can be created. Rarely is the work clever or cerebral, but occasionally, when it is called for, it can be. That is the point, as graphic artists, our work should be a result of our clients wants and needs—which less often calls for a dramatic creativity, and more often calls for solid, consistent, and successful design. This might be a stretch—but I will liken it to Vermeer rather than Picasso.

Beyond the constraint of the cube, as an in-house graphic designer working for an AMC, I have the added benefit of possessing a pre-developed understanding of each client and their needs. Being on the “inside” I develop an understanding of each client that could never be attained from the “outside”. Also, by superseding the “getting to know you” steps, efficiency is dramatically increased.

Great design doesn’t need unlimited budgets or tons of man-hours. The constraint of the Cube can help the graphic artist produce work that is effective and efficient, and over the long haul, develops a certain client trust that can lead to a deeper relationship and greater success.