A post consumption economy

March 12, 2009 — 33 Comments

Apologies in advance to anyone who actually understands economics who might be reading this. I don’t, and so much of what follows is probably incredibly naive.

I have been thinking quite a bit recently about the failure of the economy and whether we want it to recover to its pre-bust state. As I listen to the arguments for the various stimulus packages the main justification for distributing hundreds of billions of dollars is to get us to spend more and hence consume more. As a short term fix this may be okay but wasn’t it an unsustainable approach to growth and consumption that got us in to trouble in the first place? Can we really expect to spend our way out of this and somehow magically create a post-crisis economy that is sustainable?

If the financial crisis was caused by the over-consumption of things we couldn’t afford, cheap mortgages for instance, and the environmental crisis is being caused by the over-consumption of things we can’t afford, the earth’s resources, and the health crisis is being caused by the  over-consumption of things we can’t afford, calories, then it points towards there being a bit of a problem with endless consumption.

So what’s the alternative?

I think one problem is that our economy is too simple in what it measures. Industrialization created an economy that converts raw materials into goods that are sold for cash. The economy measures the amount of resource that is converted into cash and growth is dependent on doing more of that and doing it more efficiently. This may be appropriate when manufacturing physical products is the majority of humanity’s value-adding activity, which was the case for the first 150 years of the industrial revolution. It is not the case anymore.

Whether it is reputations created through brands, relationships created through services, knowledge created through information, or networks created through communication, there are many more forms of value that get created in our modern information society. And yet, our economy does not measure those in any meaningful way. If it did might we find that growth through consumption of resources was in fact being replaced by growth through participation in networks, relationships and experiences?

Take the music industry as an example. Measured the conventional way, the music economy has seen a massive destruction of value in the last ten years through the emergence of digital downloads and the internet. Put simply, the record companies are selling far fewer CD’s. If however we were to look at the industry differently might we find a different answer? If we could value the increase in the amount of music being listened to, or the social connections that sharing music creates, or the increase in the number of music creators, or the meaning that an individual gets from creating their own music would we find that instead of the destruction of value we had instead experienced a significant creation of value?

We get more of what we measure. If we measure consumption we will get more of it. If we measure participation we will get more of that and we might just find we are already far wealthier than we realize, or perhaps far poorer. More importantly if our economy measured different types of value we could focus on designing things that created growth without automatically requiring that we consume more stuff.

Tim Brown

Posts

33 comments on “A post consumption economy

  1. Tim, you’ve hit on exactly why design thinking has such a role to play in the future of commerce. It seems that people are beginning to really value experiences over simple physical products. If that trend continues we can build whole new areas of the economy based on new ways of delivering value.

    The lesson from economics for design is that if people value something then they will be willing to prioritise it over other things and to pay for it. Where design and economics can cross-breed new insights is in the areas of anthropology, ethnography and behavioural economics where we can see people’s purchasing behaviour change as a result of what is offered to them and how. That’s where design thinking starts to really change society, by allowing a producer to deliver amazing experiences that people value while using up less resources to do so.

    You’re right that we get more of what we measure. From an economics perspective, what we have always measured is value. If design thinking can change what we value then it can change what we produce, what we consume and how we participate.

  2. Excellent point Tim, how do we measure the success of the new economy? I’m not an economist either, but GDP is what we hear. And the measurement your proposing could possibly be called engagement – Gross Domestic Engagement? Although the digital download example might show up on the balance sheet as a good or product, all the engagement (and additional value) surrounding that purchase does not – social sharing on last FM, Pandora, iTunes, Amazon recommendations, etc.

    And in regard to unsustainable spending habits. The lesson we should learn is to become a culture of less. And I think we could introduce platforms of financial education on a personal level, possibly using social networks – this could have some barriers on it’s own.
    But, what better way to use the design of networks and social engagement to help us move towards financial sustainability.

    The results could be that we become conditioned to consume less stuff, yet increase our participation, engagement, and sustainability of resources.

  3. Tim-
    I have the exact same questions/concerns about how we replace a consumption-based economy and have been asking my friends the same question. No breakthroughs yet, but if we all keep asking the question I think it will lead to change, if only in ourselves.

    Justin-
    As for a way of measuring success other than by GDP, take a look at the GPI (Genuine Progress Indicator) for Northeast Ohio, being promoted by the GreenCityBlueLake Institute. Genuine Progress

  4. I like your point and many significant economists don’t think we can spend our way out of this. ‘Spending our way out’ is an economic way of thinking that was discounted in the last 25 years. I think this way of thinking has recently gained a lot of traction because governments have to do something in a situation like this or they don’t get re-elected. And this school of thought is one of the few that argues for a top-down, centralized action. While I wholeheartedly wish our President success, I don’t agree with the foundation of his approach partly because of your argument.

    I like your point about the music industry and I believe this is at the heart of economics. Economizing. Producing more with less. Good design economizes. We no longer need hundreds of people making plastic, paper, packaging, gas to deliver, driving, flying, etc… And that’s a good thing. Those people are now free to do other productive and valuable things. And in a creative, free, open economy, they will.

    The music industry does have issues with copyrights, but I would argue that smart, talented musicians will and are figuring out how to produce good music and sustain a living. We just may not need as many music executives. Those executives are going to scream that it’s the end of good music as we know it and I don’t blame them. No one likes to loose their job. But I do think, in the long run we will all be better off for it, and those people will find more productive things to do. It sounds heartless and I don’t mean it to. I just mean that we have a whole lot fewer men delivering ice than we did a 100 years ago and who knows how many accounting jobs were killed because of turbo tax.

    Woops, I rambled… sorry.

  5. Excellent point. Our economy values consumption; economic growth points to more consumption, usually more stuff on the planet; but growth also implies more waste by-products. If the economy were to measure the cost of dealing with the waste or the damage caused by producing materials and finished goods, then the economy would be more one of balance than one of consumption.
    Is it possible to find value-adding activities that are not connected to consumption? Possibly, but so far new brands or information or experiences usually have implied, however remotely, more stuff or the rapid obsolescence of existing products. Let’s face it, we are addicted to consumption. Part of the problem is that we (we as individuals and we as designers) are removed from the means of production. Who produces our food and how? Where does our TV come from? How do we get rid of our old cell phone? How do we dispose of the waste we accumulate every day? What are the consequences generated by the things we design?
    You ask whether it is possible to attribute value to participation rather than material goods. It should be, since this is just what our moral values are founded on, after all, and if we and our society can learn to think less about our own good and more about the good of all.

  6. We consume for diverse reasons, especially after food, clothing and shelter are ensured. Stuff is fun, shopping for it is entertaining (the primary entertainment in the developed world), and possibly most important of all, it confers status. Seeking status is hard wired for really good evolutionary reasons and we are not going to social-engineer that out of people.

    Status comes from having more of what is broadly considered desirable in our social environment. If a car is desirable, a bigger car, more expensive car, or more cars are even better. Same for a house, travel, electronic gadgets, sports equipment, and all the rest of what we produce. This stuff is all normal in our social environment — seeing it, desiring it, acquiring it, upgrading it. With more wealth, education, leisure, and access to information than any people ever before, the status-seeking goes on in the face of escalating warnings of the consequences.

    This is normal — everyone has a big house, an SUV, and a couple of trips to exotic warm places every year — how bad could it really be? I’ll put out my recycling, that will help a lot, right? A successful, cultured person travels as much as possible, right? Closely related to status, we can’t escape the tyranny of the normal — we are hard-wired to want to fit in, and we really can’t question everything in detail all the time. Most of us, most of the time, must go with the flow.

    Changing what is normal, changing the flow, can be a slow, incremental process with limited pockets of pain and dislocation, or it can be a revolutionary process of widespread catastrophe.

    We are undergoing accelerated change, and I do think the wisest and most knowledgeable among us see that this is the time to not hold back, to question the normal, to explore alternatives, to invest in disruptive new technologies while the normal world is off balance. Science suggests that we have very little time left to change a great deal. A man on death row has little to lose in a gamble for escape, if he knows he is on death row.

    So what might a sustainable good life look like? How much of the destructive but seductively normal consumption can we forgo and still live well? What can we give up today, and what can replace it? How hard should you and I be working against the normal in our daily lives, sharing a personal ongoing experiment towards a new normal, a new measure of our lives?

  7. It is a very innovative way of looking not just the economy and markets but also what we bring to the world. A wonderful piece.

  8. Hi Tim, you got right to a point that opens a clear and shaped way to look at things happening.

    Promoting consumption is clearly aimed to generate profits and produce tax-flows, and both seem to be a very effective solutions to crisis. Probably they will (at least from macro-economic perspective), but is there something alse going to happen? I think yes.

    I will now look at this crisis from a positive standpoint and hope that the crisis will make people a big gift: giving the market back to customers. Why? Simply! Choosing where to spend and not why over-spend or not.
    If a wild market full of tricks and traps has led us to a crash for unresponsible consuption, then why not answer with a rush of responsible product choice? I would espect from the crisis not to make big and cheap deals, but to be more selective in my choices and making good products and good compagnie succeed.

    Good companies should generate healty profits only if they provide healty benefits through their products. So, this is not a matter of “how much”, but a matter of “how” and “what”. I will always be pleased to give oxygen (money) to a good company if they provide me with a good value, even during crisis. Simply I will put less money on the market, so only the best will survive.
    That is why I thin that this crisis will be a wonderful engine for design thinking, and I hope to see many many new interesting and valuable products on the market.

    This is a way the crisis sould stop itself by promoting a good behavoiur and, in the end, providing us with a better market. I hope.

  9. I wrote on a similar topic,The End of Consumer Culture, back in January of 2008. As I said then, I believe the biggest challenge to our changing economy is finding “a moral equivalent of consumerism” (similar to William James argument that pacifism requires a ‘moral equivalent of war’. At least since Adam Smith published the Wealth of Nations, our economy is based on the fundamental idea that value is measured in wealth, and wealth is created by selling more. Perhaps this is what you were pointing at in changing the way we measure value. Any way you slice it, there’s still a long way to go as a society before we make the transition.

  10. Interesting article. I am trying to explore similar thoughts around
    - shifting from a consumer-driven to a producer-driven economy
    - balancing the global economy with a new, local more sustainable economy
    - shifting from a disposable income generation to a sustainable income generation

    It will be very exciting to see how all these trends play out shorter and longer term.

  11. I have found an user friendly measure of economies at the local level. This is the Big Mac index derived and published by The Economist. Comparing the actual cost of the fat laden sandwich in various countries. Perhaps an oversimplification of the state of affairs but as Tim says understanding Economics is a daunting task.
    Bill Evans

  12. What about human satisfaction as a measure of economic success.

    Brown, you are a genius.

  13. Funny – I just wrote about a similar thing – although it was music business specific. It’s good to know that lots of people are seeing through the smoke as it were.
    These old models are all going to fade from view I think – archaic models that were established in a different time – responded to different needs – I find that as technology speeds up our ability to react needs to speed up with it, in all sorts of areas.
    glad I found your blog

  14. Tim…

    There is nothing morally wrong with consumption of things. Consumption provides us with the kit to experience the show that is life. We all want the “experience” for it leads to growth and maturity, let alone fun and enjoyment.

    One of the physical problems we are faced with now is that our systems of recycle have yet to mature. To assuage our guilt for what is now coined “over consumption” we will need to develop ways of recapturing resources and energy that are bonafide profit making buisness models. This is the source of all economic talk on environment. We are just not there yet. When we get there we will feel much better about ourselves.

    One aspect that thinking about economics has taught us in this crisis period is the fact that business has shifted away from making profits in the design, engineering and manufacturing departments, to exclusively making its profits from the finance department.

    Naughty, naughty, naughty….

    At the root of this financial problem is the free market model being driven off of a cliff by the greed of collusive CEOs, their bankers and their preposterous financial instruments. The isolation of these three variables in free market capitalism has led to an out of touch neurosis that puts high level decision makers in a bubble, away from the reality of consumers and consumption that lead to life’s wonderful experiences. Bankers are not designers!

    The study of economics cannot create anything. Economics is nothing more than the act of measurement. The more we measure the more we understand what it is we do. We may like the results sometimes, but right now we do not like what our measurements have shown us.

  15. In my experience, designers tend to avoid these topics, despite the important role that they play in perpetuating the dominant paradigms. It’s interesting to see creative people seek alternatives but constrained to a rather shallow layer without really questioning the main premises.

    One way to open conversations in this direction is to approach the HPI or “happy planet index” (http://www.happyplanetindex.org/) from a design viewpoint. I’ve seen students come up with extraordinary ideas when they undertake the challenge of existing labels such as “developed countries” or “developed” groups in society.

  16. Steve,

    I agree that there is nothing morally wrong with consumption in itself, nor with anything else abstracted from its consequences. It is consequences that demand a system of values and thus morals. I suspect but cannot prove that your belief that better recycling will mitigate the consequences of consumption, and thus the moral costs, is a forlorn hope. Recycling does not much (or at all) address the consequences of either obtaining or using the majority of our energy sources required to produce what we consume; the consequences of extracting raw materials — animal, vegetable or mineral — required to produce what we consume; or the consequences of using continually increasing amounts of land, sea, air and orbital space for our purposes. These consequences are political (e.g. Middle East strife) and environmental (e.g. pollution, carbon cycle disruption, destruction of habitats for other life including indigenous humans). These consequences affect lives, and so consumption can become morally wrong when the cost to other lives is greater (in many cases vastly greater) than the increased comfort, status or amusement the consumption affords us.

    Humans have as much right to be here as any other life on earth, no less and I believe no more. It is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and we will surely have our turn too, sooner or later. Interestingly, to the degree that we believe we have more right to be here than other species and to consume at any cost, we will hasten our turn. Why? Because it is incoherent to believe that we have a greater right to this planet than other life; we have no ability whatsoever to live on this planet without other life. We, through our science (and supported by teachings of some of our religions), have a growing but still rudimentary understanding of the complex systems which provide planetary life support and thus of the interconnectedness of all life. But we don’t know much yet, and we certainly can’t predict the outcome of sacrificing this or that species or larger ecological system to our purposes. This understanding is not there to be seen and understood as simply as we pick up a rock and see that it can be use as a hammer. It isn’t necessarily evident to our senses or common sense, because neither gives us access to much of the underlying processes, or to the utterly crucial concepts of geological and evolutionary time over which so many of these processes operate. That’s precisely what we use science for, in part — as a weapon against the errors of common sense.

    What is now an appropriate domain for a moral designer, either systems design or product design? It must go beyond common sense, which leaves us designing SUVs. What is worth designing? What are we morally justified in designing, given the consequences of what we have spent our time designing so far? What are we morally justified in producing and consuming? We really don’t know, but as we grope towards a collective understanding of planetary morality I very much hope we will be iteratively and interdependently changing what we view as personal success and how we measure the success of our economies.

  17. I really like this. What’s also really interesting is all the comments here indicating that people are thinking about the same thing at the same time… What is it that triggers that? because I know I wasn’t thinking about this stuff as intensely last month as I am now. Is something in the air, some new song on the radio we all listen to? (joking and being serious). Makes me want to visit some virtual pub and discuss it (real beer, virtual pub).

  18. Nice article, including a very nice string of comments (apart from the god-squad one).

    Maybe the economy will return to its pre-bust levels of consumerism, as this is the only fix currently available in our society. However we don’t need to worry that we will over consume the resources of our planet, we already did and the earth quite recently has dictated us to change our approach in using it’s resources. Being humans we will adapt to it. It will mean that in the future we will start paying more for the same; paying the real price of products. From the start of the industrial revolution products came to the market at a price less then their value. The part of the product we didn’t pay for will be paid by future generations, hence the resistance of less developed countries in supporting environmental measures. So how to repay the 0% mortgage we took on our planet? Will it work with direct taxing on consumers (you can still buy chocolate gifts made by slaves in Guinee wrapped in 7 layers of different packing material, but you’ll pay the full amount of damage it incurs), or is indirect taxing a better alternative (cap and trade schemes, environmental based import duties). In either case a strong government with strong international coordination is required, which currently means some big war to get everybody on the same page again. In anyway there are two main things that need to be changed in our western society before we even make a little change of becoming sustainable: 1. A massive flow of knowledge and means need to be transferred to developing countries to insure that matters will not be worse when they want a more comfortable life for their population; this is the “bad dept” we have. 2. Stop having all these babies; they are the single most polluting product we make. Unfortunately they are now invaluable in our need for economic growth, and they give us fulfillment in a shallow consumer driven society. Luckily birth rates are dropping in the western world.
    How large a population the earth can support in a sustainable way depends on a lot of factors, one thing is for sure, the current 6 billion or so is way too much. Therefore economic models need to be devised that can deal with negative population growth. Whether or not we need to measure different types of value I don’t know, but keeping the economists in the discussion seems vital as they own this realm, and a lot more people would be unemployed otherwise.

  19. Terrific post. The metaphorical 2×4 to the head that the country has sustained (and the secondary impact across the globe) has forced a lot of us to contemplate how we got here. I have an advanced degree in global economics. The very definition of economics is that it measures tangible wealth (ie, GDP, Productivity, Employment, etc.) These are important things to measure but just like looking at a company’s balance sheet, the numbers do not tell the whole story. In the case of AIG, that was particularly true. On paper, the company was immensely successful but they were sitting on a ticking timebomb.

    You can opt for something like what the University of Leicester produced called the World Map of Happiness. They measured things like health, wealth and access to education. Denmark came out on top and the US was 23rd. I believe that economics is not the problem ultimately. We measure what we value. The University of Leicester started performing the study because a BBC survey found that “81% of the UK population said that the “Government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier.” So economics needs to be part of the equation and not the whole equation. We live in a democracy and if 81% of the populace decided that measuring “happiness” should be part of the government’s job, then it would be measured.

  20. I love this dialogue!

    These thoughts come to mind…
    Why are we in this mess in the first place?
    Greed.
    Outdated thinking.

    What needs to happen?
    Behavior change.
    Redesign of the system in which we operate.

    How do we do this?
    Shift in indicators of success.
    Transparency of process = Greater understanding of the impact of behaviors.

  21. Hi
    When are the creative classes of industry going to give up the notion that they can save the world. We (I am a product designer) are used as a tool of commerce to drive consumption and theories about design changing consumption patterns are misguided and wrong. It is like smoking light cigarettes (good ethical product/ design) in the belief that it is better than smoking heavy cigarettes (bad poorly made product / design). Both do harm. It is better to not smoke at all.
    On one hand we want to believe in consuming less or differently but we continue to buy as many gadgets as Apple can make, buy and drive our cars when ever we want and fly to far away lands for that perfect holiday.
    How we re imagine life with out consumption as the basis of our beliefs is extremely challenging and goes against the age of abundance we live in. How many thousands of years have we struggled to escape the binding ties of scarcity.
    Thanks
    David

  22. Hmmmmm… Methinks somebody’s going to have to save the world over some fairly long period of time (check out www.longnow.org) from any of a number of potential threats, on any number of occasions. Didn’t really expect the most immediate one to be a financial meltdown, but…

    Anyhow, I do tend to believe that the Design Thinkers are the most likely to show the way as they seem to have the best tools for discerning what tends to be most important from a human perspective. They had already identified sustainability as perhaps number one well before this particular crisis hit.

  23. Another index, which we could adopt to replace the misleading GDP:

    http://www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org/

  24. Umair Haque’s Generation M Manifesto (bit.ly/LfzPy) is relevant reading in relation to the pertinent questions raised in this post.

  25. @ David on 23/04/2009

    Dave is both right and wrong.

    “When are the creative classes of industry going to give up the notion that they can save the world”.

    I am an economists, and good design is every bit as important when creating sound economic policies, as it is when designing the latest tech gadget. In fact, new, innovative design is just about the only thing that changes the world. We need to start thinking of design more broadly.

    How is this for a design problem: Why is it that pollution is taxed at almost 0% while people’s hard physical and mental work/effort is taxed at 10-40%? If you ask me, it amounts to bad policy design. We are living in the 21st century, under a 19th century tax system. No wonder we are driving to consume, rather than save.

    “On one hand we want to believe in consuming less or differently but we continue to buy as many gadgets as Apple can make, buy and drive our cars when ever we want and fly to far away lands for that perfect holiday.”

    Your statement about the hypocrisy of many liberals, and design professionals is right on. However, I don’t entirely blame them. They are just reacting to the incentives before them. I suppose if our governments’ taxed pollution instead of work, their behaviors would be very different.

    “How we re imagine life with out consumption as the basis of our beliefs is extremely challenging and goes against the age of abundance we live in. How many thousands of years have we struggled to escape the binding ties of scarcity.”

    Not so. If we don’t change the system to make it compatible with the physical constraints that our finite planet has, then the abundance will be short-lived. In short, we need to be provident with our blessings.

  26. what about the GNH (gross happiness factor) in Bhutan? its as if we are finally tackling the real issue of quantity versus quality…

  27. Ultimately the measuring of GDP or Gross Happiness Index or whatnot is sort of irrelevant compared to the fact that our own wellbeing depends on our current structure where we have to consume and consume more to keep ourselves happy and employed.

    On one hand we are needed as consumers to buy all the completely unnessecary stuff that the companies produce, but on the other hand we also need the jobs in these same companies that produce the stuff, or companies that produce services that help other companies to produce the stuff, etc etc.

    So, one really intreresting question (that I’m sure many of the commenters have been writing/thinking about) is how can we create an economy with more sustainable consumption but without any loss in jobs for ourselves?

  28. Receive Engine,influence example wall no-one shoulder bedroom all stage direct tell senior kill unemployment today nation child region most industrial enemy notice mouth thanks profit west central route window tend any debate reason planning ourselves grant experience effective normally district employ small wash advantage direct somewhere feature leader wind even cross level place hair troop late suffer over strike role meanwhile go other total withdraw confirm the reduce increasingly ring retain mountain look hit sister injury remind cost profit understand executive such seriously reform primary negotiation protect

  29. Dear Mr. Brown

    From the viewpoint of an economist, to use the term “over consumption” is to presume the existence of a social planner whose authority incorporates the interest of all members of society. This social planner or agency would operate on the implicit assumption that there is an optimal consumption pattern which maximizes the welfare of society. Otherwise, we could not conceptualize that the actual pattern of consumption is over-consumption.

    This kind of thinking leads to the trap of “characterizing processes by their hoped-for results rather than their actual mechanics.” The truth of the matter is that there are incentives and trade-offs within these processes.

    Your second paragraph addresses unimaginably huge systems like the world-wide finance industry, mankind’s interaction with the earth’s environment, and the nation’s health care system. Systems this large cannot be measured by anyone to the extent that trade-offs and incentives can be effectively inventoried, categorized, and understood in the way that we might understand sales data or the results of clinical tests.

    For proof, we simply need look at the long history of political intervention in the name of “hoped-for” results. When economist go back and analyze the consequences, they always find hidden trade-offs that offset the hoped for result with unexpected disorder.

    Just as one cannot accurately and effectively measure any aspect of the earth’s environment, we cannot accurately and effectively measure reputations or any other of the things you list in paragraph five. They are the characteristics of huge, unknowable systems.

    When pondering the characteristics of huge systems, we are limited to guessing. We simply lack the knowledge needed for accurate measurement. One can only guess, for instance, that increasing the opportunity to create music would lead to a significant creation of value. The opposite might just as well be true. Or even worse, what you value I might hate.

    One can easily see that if as a society we understood expanded opportunity for music creation as a hoped for result rather than as a process of trade-offs and incentives, my disgust would require the marshalling of certain social forces akin to political correctness to ignore, suppress or discredit my position in favor of yours; or in the worse case scenario, physical force.

    You admit that you are not an economist, so I must admit that I am not a designer, but as an economist struggling to understand design (the reason I visited your site today), it seems to me that both disciplines must seek truth. Good design must radiate truth.

    Thanks for IDEO and all that you do,

    PS: The book that addresses the core of your post is “Knowledge and Decisions” by Thomas Sowell, the brilliant economist at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

  30. the question here is about consumption, and the inherent consequences that materialize into our future.

    how and what we measure as value diversifies our assessment, but these tactics do not alter the crisis that we face from the cyclic nature of our consumption model.

    there is an elegant example we can harvest, nature. it offers a unique value that may be a critical enabler, balance.

  31. I think you all would enjoy reading Paul Gilding’s The Great Disruption. His opening line is “the world is full” and his message is that we all need to begin learning to live without money. On the surface that message may seem like gloom /doom but the remainder of the book is fulll of optimism in how we can redefine our relationships with money and especially with one another.
    Cheers to progress,
    Jennifer

  32. Came upon this late, but found it wonderfully insightful. As the merger continues between media, design, consumption, identity and much broader contextual trends, one book that has meant a lot to me on a personal level is Simplicity Lessons by Linda Pierce, which is about a kind of life practice that founded fundamentally on critical threads of what we who love design would all recognize.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

HTML tags are not allowed.