Interesting Design vs. Profitable Design

I came across the Hackers & Painters essay the other day. Its a great artcle, and a few paragraphs in I was suprised with all of the parallels between 'hackers' and designers with an indie mind-set. One line that really caught my attention was:

The other problem with startups is that there is not much overlap between the kind of software that makes money and the kind that's interesting to write.

Now, change software with furniture design:

The other problem with startups is that there is not much overlap between the kind of [furniture design] that makes money and the kind that's interesting to [design].

This is very true in the corporate world. A design needs to have a certain amount of 'mass appeal' to be viable as a marketable product, according to most in the traditional Furniture Industry. The really interesting stuff gets pushed aside to make way for the tried-and-true and/or watered-down designs, generally.


But what if you apply Long Tail business practices to the world of obscure furniture design? It works for books, music, and DVDs - why not furniture?

It would open up an entirely new world for the independant designer who still relies a great deal on physical retailers to sell product, meaning that you would no longer have to place your wares in the few markets that have a relatively high number of potential buyers. Designers could produce those really off-the-wall pieces, and still be able to find a enough buyers to make it worth their while. This would move all interesting design into the realm of profitable design - i.e. complete overlap.

There are a lot of unknowns, but I think this will ultimately drive a wave of independent (furniture) design in the near future. I hope to be one of those indie designers riding the wave.

Of course, all this begs the question - are enough potential customers interested in 'interesting' design to buy the stuff when its more widely available?