December, 2025.- With more than forty years in the design industry, John Ball has developed a definition of “good design” that goes far beyond aesthetics or visual trends. In this Roastbrief interview, the Principal and Creative Director of MiresBall reflects on a career shaped by listening, process, and a deep respect for the client’s business realities. What once began as a pursuit of approval and visual appeal has evolved into a disciplined practice centered on clarity, impact, and long-term relevance.
At the heart of this conversation is a pivotal moment: John’s early presentation to Andy Grove at Intel. What he believed to be competent work was quickly dismissed as superficial. That uncomfortable encounter became a turning point, forcing him to confront the limits of his thinking and to recognize that design must communicate meaning, not just style. It was a lesson learned the hard way—and one that would influence two decades of collaboration with one of the world’s most demanding technology brands.
Throughout the interview, John explores why certain clients fundamentally reshape creative thinking, rather than simply influencing individual projects. From Intel’s culture of “constructive confrontation” to Shure’s relentless pursuit of perfection, these experiences reinforced the importance of balancing creativity with clarity and commercial purpose.
As a leader and mentor, John also shares how he passes these lessons on to younger creatives—reminding them that every design decision carries business consequences, and that empathy for the client is essential to meaningful collaboration. This is a thoughtful reflection on growth, resilience, and the idea that the toughest moments in a career often become the most transformative.
- You’ve spent more than forty years in the industry. Looking back, how has your understanding of what “good design” really means evolved from your early career to the way you define it today?
Starting out, it was all about trying to make something look cool and trying to get it approved. There was more trend chasing and less seeing the bigger picture for each client and the opportunities that creates.
Over time, our firm’s craft skills became stronger, our thinking got sharper, and our confidence grew. Today, it’s as much about the process—how we engage with clients, the questions we ask and how deeply we listen. That is what it takes to create the kind of design that lasts, that solves our clients’ challenges and moves them forward. So that’s how I’d define “good design” today.
- You’ve said that every client leaves a mark on you as a designer — some positive, some challenging. Why do you think certain clients fundamentally reshape the way creatives think, rather than just influencing individual projects?
There are lessons to be had with every project and every client, but some challenges—and the learning opportunities they offer—are bigger than others.
Most successful organisations have a strong internal culture or a unique way of seeing the world, and if you spend enough time with them, it’s bound to rub off. For instance, Intel uses “constructive confrontation” to debate ideas and identify weaknesses, a very direct approach which makes it impossible to skate by with a flimsy rationale. Twenty years immersed in that world most definitely made me a better designer.
Our client Shure has this mantra from their founder, “We know very well that absolute perfection cannot be attained, but we will never stop striving for it,” which aligns with our approach, and I’ve always found it inspiring.
Sometimes it’s a scrappy startup or non-profit that just has us rooting for their success and reminds us how pivotal our work can be for them.
3. Your first presentation to Intel’s Andy Grove has become a defining story in your career. What specifically about that meeting was so confronting, and what did it force you to confront about your own approach to design at the time?
Andy was legendary for never mincing his words, with a razor-sharp mind that always expected you to bring your A-game. And not adverse to tossing in a few F-bombs.
We worked on their annual report for 10 years, and I presented to Andy every year. There was one time early on where our work was, in hindsight, so superficial—a bunch of generic portraits. He just completely dismissed it, saying, “Who are all these happy people?” It forced us to dig deeper and think harder about how to deliver Intel’s message more directly and authentically.
- That experience shifted your focus from purely aesthetic outcomes to clarity, impact, and commercial effect. How did that change manifest in your work immediately after — and how does it still show up in your designs today?
It helped me learn to step away from the work and see it through the client’s eyes. I think the ability to toggle between “client eyes” and “designer eyes” is kind of a superpower.
I started to understand what’s important to them—how our work fits into their larger context, how we steward their budgets, how we prioritise effectiveness, which informs how we align with them on our solutions.
I learned that there needs to be a careful balance between clarity and creativity to achieve the impact and commercial success we’re after. Clarity at the expense of creativity risks becoming pedestrian, but when creativity is emphasised over clarity, the client message can get lost.
- You worked alongside Intel for two decades, inside one of the world’s most complex and demanding technology brands. How do you stay creatively true to yourself while operating within such large, high-stakes corporate environments?
It starts with doing your homework. Reading the material. Diving in, to understand the business and comprehend the context. And not being afraid of their famously dense PowerPoint decks!
Then it’s taking all that complexity and finding the simple truths, doing work that answers the brief in an awesome way —or better yet, goes beyond it. Taking feedback and rolling with the punches. Sweating every detail and maintaining a high level of craft.
We’re tenacious in pursuit of win-wins—work the client loves as much as we do.
- Many creatives fear “tough clients.” From your perspective, what separates a difficult client who limits creativity from one who actually makes you a better designer?
I’ve been lucky to have clients that challenge me but also come to the table with an open mind. If they are willing to engage and toss out any preconceived ideas, that’s all we really need. But it’s also our job to meet them where they are—we have to deliver the goods!
- As a leader and mentor today, how do you pass on these lessons — particularly the value of clarity, simplicity, and commercial thinking — to younger creatives who may still be drawn primarily to aesthetics?
I try to instil these ideas in every conversation and design review with the team. I make sure we’re always talking about how we can improve the work.
Everyone “gets it” at their own speed, in their own way. There’s no one right answer, but I do remind the team that creative decisions always have business implications—for the client and the agency.
Also, it’s good to have empathy for the client, because they usually have so much more at risk than we do. It could be their own personal finances, their career, or the future of their organisation. When we embrace what our clients have at stake, it puts us on the same side of the table. They know we have their back.
- If you could go back and speak to your younger self just before that infamous Intel meeting, what advice would you give — and what do you think you would still need to learn the hard way?
I would say don’t fool yourself into thinking you’ve got it when you’re really just shooting in the dark. Andy’s famous mantra, “only the paranoid survive,” had some merit. Find the blind spots in your thinking—before the client does.
But in truth, he taught that lesson way better than I could have.
