At the National Trust (again)

During 2021–2022

Published 28 September 2023

Giving it a go

A moment of happenstance and then mostly a bit of, ‘Why not, let's see what happens?’ in applying for a temporary, 12-month maternity cover graphic designer role.

Slightly surprised to get selected for an interview which seemed to go okay, then got a ‘typical’, role-specific test which also seemed okay to me.

As luck would have it, my efforts paid off and accepted I was. But as was mentioned to me after that fact, in a spirit of honesty, was that I had history with the brand, its visual identity and its ways of presenting itself and that meant they didn’t have to spend extra time and effort training me in those details!

Some things happened

Well, it started reasonably well and ended quite nicely as I used the role’s statutory holiday in pretty much one go to be able to finish a month early.

In between

Between those start and end moments I completed some work and also wondered why much of it seemingly came with not much broader justification and even a little additional baggage from its project owners and their own methods of how they like to get stuff done. One can appreciate that everyone has bills to pay, mouths to feed, departments to work for, expectations to meet and are (generally) well-meaning and (reasonably) level-headed when working but when you’re on a side that sees a lot of things and that those things are seemingly always very important and need to be treated importantly and maybe even speedily, it get’s a little tiring to get that nearly all the time . . . and makes wonder what it’s all for . . . it makes you wonder why there is so much stuff that actually, with better oversight and planning doesn’t seem that important, even essential, to being made in the first place.

Still, what might a graphic designer know? What can they really do? Shouldn't they just present nice work and ignore the very often unjustified ‘art direction’ (read, personal preference of interpreting the brand) that is often alluded to and that self-justifies the reasons and insights of roles and departments that aren't really required and actually just help propel the need for the organisation to make more stuff that it doesn't really need to do or spend money on, despite (many pointless) modern, economic- and digital-trends that seem to drive meaning, justification and relevance that everyone feels the need to follow and ape for efficacy and success these days.

Invariably quite often, my impression was that many a project never seemed to be truly considered in the round (a la, somewhat, my previous years there, despite best efforts to counter that).

Or, at least, how what its content was and how it came across never seemed to take in the whys and wherefores of wider intent nor possible customer or member reception to it.

A bit like reinventing the wheel for the sake of it and even though it works fine, ironically, when you don’t use it.

Still, it seemed many a role needed to be seen to be doing things and keeping up the appearances of nostalgia and tradition as if it were genuine heritage, through whatever channel and in whatever medium, so that old things can be preserved and are seen to be relevant to a modern (and younger) audience ahead of and not massively interesting in that curve.

Less is more, like internally, in my opinion, the need to reduce the amount of waffle, sorry text, in briefs (that were clearly still the same since my previous years there!) and better present, even inspire, what is needed and important to the recipients of one at a readable type size and with suitable links to more detail that gives context to readers through an informative, usable and accessible internal website (which one could visit at any time and is regularly updated) that collates and shows important and useful yearly metrics that guide a(n organisation’s and) department’s intent (and the actual Word file got rid of as convenience, despite most (if not all staff) having access to that bloated software, often means a lack of oversight, insight and or relevancy and the ticking of a box for someone . . . anyway, that was actually more to try and espouse, even get, less in fact . . . anyway, got that off my chest!

Before I interrupted myself(!), here is what I was about to write . . . less can be more in fact and if there was an impression the internal (HQ) crowd (and its many roles) seemed to give it was not wanting to be seen as irrelevant and possibly pointless, as aren’t they here to conserve, preserve and make good things happen through their role, skills and knowledge?

In conclusion

I am appreciative of having had the opportunity and, hopefully, helped complete a few required tasks and maybe even contributed a few perspectives and insights.

How some of the old faces from my previous years had managed to ‘rise’ up the rungs in the organisation (or move sideways to stick around in a different role and department) and still be there is proof positive in my opinion nothing really changes and of a game (no doubt the old classic, the corporate and nonsensical game) being played that brings no benefit to anyone (other than probably a self-fulfilling justification or two, a bottom line, seniority and wage level and CV), is out of time and sync with the real world and troubled by overcomplicating and centralising aspects of its charitable remit that really, it shouldn’t be doing, especially at the scale it thinks it needs to.

A bit like gaining a slightly reconfigured head role of a department that was probably won by ‘selling’ an idea that no other potential candidate had given and seemed like a profitable, sorry, valuable reason (despite its justification being a little remiss in reducing a broad and eclectic charity to one thing, rather than celebrating and involving the breadth and diversity of a nation to present a variety of things over a year (and onwards) to delight, inspire even surprise audiences when encapsulating the brand through advertising) to compel a currently disordered and fractured nation that a somewhat dusty old charity, despite its haphazard and sometimes reasonable means and attempts at engagement and care is down with hoi polloi (and should first engage and empower its own staff to engineer cost-effective responses, not just outsource to big names) to remain valued and relevant . . . somewhat like the UK government needs to and that can often be blinded and enthralled by its own nostalgia and traditions that can prevent building a more fair, meaningful and workable future for all.

Oh, and having an innovation department at your HQ is surely a sure fire way to not be innovative; is it that no other department (or member of staff) can be innovative, as that’s what calling a department that sounds like.

It might in fact be more innovative to topple the top-down structures, leaders (and the trustees, what with their mostly aged sense of class, privilege and nostalgia and predominately unelected status) and remap, certainly head office and its aims and objectives of the often pointless marketing and advertising and digital efforts that do nothing to really lead and champion things like a more open web and associated technologies, standing and supporting things like the personal data revolution of Solid and its pods, alongside just good and fair, non-competitive, non-capitalist efforts . . . empowering those that choose to get involved and support the organisation through its effort with time, effort even money and maybe saving on administration costs and ironically attracting more people and even more funds over the long-term.

Stand for something that isn’t just chasing the mainstream or, quite frankly, outdated and backward political (and managerial and compartmentalised) systems and processes that most likely won’t work for the future.

Still, concluding the conclusion, I did think that the year’s experiences must have been somewhat similar for my old direct reports (back when I was managing a fledgling design team and a few freelancers) and could understand why these things (invariably involving those that seem to talk loudest and or the most, seemingly operate mostly in the short-term and don’t seem to genuinely engage with their teams to learn and understand their colleagues’ skills and trade) end up grinding talented people down, who then leave organisations for different horizons and opportunities (as well as avoiding managerialism and being institutionalised).

That irrational dust gets everywhere.

But, one would hope that at least a few of the ideas I put together (see my internal links below) maybe planted (even nurtured) a seed or two that helped contribute to the lessening of the organisation’s earnestness a little and possibly even assisted constructive conversation, exploration and presentation of its brand, rather than (always seemingly) just obscuring the very thing you’re trying to show and celebrate.

Oh, and fusty books and the like, sorry, meaningful historical texts and particular and interesting content unique to the organisation’s care, digitised and placed behind a paywall (and not just exclusively for members either as that aspect could be made a more inclusive and involving spectrum of admission) might be a forward-thinking way to open access, lower barriers and better represent the charity progressively . . . even raising a bit more money to aid its coffers and its outdoor ambitions, intentions and good work . . .

Nothing like a bit of anti-presentation to cut to the point, aid conversation and to make viewers enrage their thought processes, especially some critical thinking and seeing some spirit and abilities, no matter how ‘mad’ one may be!

Achievements in this role included...

Paying some bills with my monthly wage.
Coming to the conclusion that it seems to be all talk and about management and managing these days, regardless of roles and any actual skills, knowledge or experience you may have or lack thereof.
Making myself cups of tea at break times to help refuel – no sugar required.