Few areas of design still manage to polarise opinions today. And no matter how worldly-wise we may have become, sex toy design appears to be one of them. This article looks at the topic from two points of view: the Creative's, and the Suit's, and we believe that there might be an interesting opportunity for young designers in the mix as well.

The Creative's perspective:

When I started looking into the topic, I have to say I got the impression that there are few areas of design that still serve to polarise quite as successfully as sex toy design. Many of you will probably shake their heads now, saying „Oh no, there is no problem at all – bring them on, we'll be more than happy to discuss means of sexual stimulation over coffee any time“. Fact is, many of you probably wouldn't. And it has to be said: there is nothing wrong either way – we should just bear in mind that the issue we will be looking at in this article is a question of *designing* toys, not the preference of selling, buying or using them (which is actually still illegal in some countries, believe it or not).

Actually, it's a fascinating design area to look at, once the initial discomfort (if applicable) subsides. A sex toy is one of the products that will ultimately be closer to one's body than any other object, that is interacted with in the most intimate moments and ways, and which thus has to meet design challenges of the most extreme kind. No other product has to be as compatible with our physique, and few other objects have to fulfill a series of such complex requirements whilst at the same time being of the utmost simplicity.

The core problem is – to be honest – that sex toys until fairly recently were just not that, well, sexy. Unrecognised as an area for professional designers to look into, most sex toys seemed to follow the good old catchphrase of form following function maybe a little too closely.

 A subsequent trend towards 'cute' designs represents a marginal improvement at best: big-eyed caterpillars in bright colours, cartoonish dolphins, and other not-so highly creative takes on the subject are obviously meant to introduce some garish girly fun, and to improve the image of the sex toy industry. This has undoubtedly helped increase sex toys' mainstream acceptance, by making them look safe, indeed innocent; in turn, allowing pioneers such as Germany's FunFactory to move sex toys out of sleazy little shops at the back of railway stations, and into bedrooms everywhere.
These enormously kitsch designs have therefore contributed significantly to paving the ways of the sex toy as a business and design area. Nonetheless, there are few niches that remain so highly underdesigned, creating an opportunity for young designers to establish a name for themselves.

Admittedly, there have been a number of attempts to move the sex toy onto the high street, and indeed into luxury boutiques – some lavish and high-priced, like the 200 EUR Swarovski-crystal-studded whips on offer at Agent Provocateur, or the Mae B. boutiques introduced by German porn industry player Beate Uhse to cater for affluent female shoppers. And whilst allowing the sex toy to come out of the closet from a retail perspective, the expectations of the growing consumer base start to have a direct effect on the resources allocated to design in the segment.

Positive mentions have to go to companies such as Jimmyjane, Myla and Lelo – companies that invest their resources into high quality design, and that have paved the way for young designers to look into this still fairly unchartered design territory:

Vibrator by Jimmyjane

Two vibrators by Myla, the latter designed by Tom Dixon

Clitoral massager by Lelo

There is one interesting aspect that I could not help but notice though: most sex toys, especially of the penetrating type, seem to be created by male designers. It makes me wonder – is it not strange that the respective designer will never be able to experience first-hand how using his product *really* feels, but will always have to rely on his target group's statements? I believe this also creates an interesting challenge, but it does make me wonder why so few female designers seem to look into the topic. Maybe this would make an attractive marketing and branding proposition: the „by women for women“ take on the subject might represent a great differentiator.

The Suit's perspective:

As a popular business theory has it, products and markets all have a lifecycle, from product introduction through growth, on to maturity and decline. Typically, this development can be plotted as an S-curve on a graph, as in the example on the right: the graph’s x-axis measures time, the y-axis growth, e.g. in number of units sold.

In general, we believe that the probability that a market yields 'great' designs rises with the market's maturity: as technologies become more commonplace, manufacturers find it increasingly difficult to win on product performance alone. At some point, all products in a given category like cars and MP3 players broadly fulfill their users’ functional needs (e.g. for quick, comfortable individual travel; for storing and playing back music ‘on the go’) to a comparable extent.

This forces companies to work harder at differentiating their products, which creates opportunities for designers. At the same time, market growth leads to a broader range of products, resulting in more designers introducing a greater range of designs. In turn, this can increase the probability that the market produces future design classics.

During this process, we believe that design quality can effectively take a 'shortcut', developing faster than the underlying market and rising in a straight line. The idea is that creativity does not depend on many of the typical aspects shaping a product life cycle, e.g. marketing and logistics rollout. Instead, the key is that companies recognise the market's potential, and the contribution that good design can make to unlocking this potential. This leads companies to invest in their design capabilities ahead of market maturity, creating a window of opportunity for young designers in particular.

Indeed, the opportunities for individual designers and design-led companies are not necessarily greatest at market maturity. Certainly, major names amongst designers are most likely to find opportunities when the market has fully developed, and companies’ budgets have grown in line with the pressure to set their products apart. At the same time, however, the sheer number and diversity of the designs already existing make it harder for any one designer and design to stand out in a mature market, disadvantaging less well-known designers.

We therefore believe that opportunities for up-and-coming talents are most significant in the early phases of the market – ideally, when the product is gaining in acceptance, but has not yet become mainstream. At this point, the product’s potential to surprise and provoke is greatest, offering designers and manufacturers the opportunity to establish a strong brand, from which they benefit as the market develops. In fact, if pushed with sufficient skill, and endorsed by major brands, even a relatively poor design can achieve sudden fame, with the surrounding hype accelerating the market’s drive towards mainstream acceptance.

A classic example of this is Ann Summer’s best-selling Rampant Rabbit, whose sales reportedly went through the roof when it was featured repeatedly on hugely popular TV show Sex and the City. The designer’s challenge, however, will be to use the opportunity to build their own brand, when typically, the manufacturer’s interest will lie in using design to strengthen their company or product brand. After all, despite the Rabbit’s success, who has ever heard of its designer?

The authors:

Anna Rojahn & Fred Rojahn, Managing Directors of Faces of Design

Markus Mueller, Industrial Designer from Halle, Germany

(All illustrations courtesy of Markus Mueller and the respective companies.)