Perhaps I am a little biased as a former rank-and-file member, but, in general, I would say the Mormons have done a pretty good job with their marketing and pr since, oh, . . . the 1980's.
In fact, to this day, I think the whole "Family, isn't it about . . . time?" campaign is pretty freakin' genius.
(Although the version aired in the U.S. did not have British accents; I think this is dubbed.)
But I seriously have to question this most recent move towards "interactive" media:
My friends and I were settling in to watch some hilarious SNL parody courtesy of the delightful Amy Poehler, when, ACK! It's Jesus! Offering me a Book of Mormon!
What is this trying to say? The Good Lord likes to get his chuckles, too? By watching SNL? Ironic, since the Church-owned NBC affiliate in Salt Lake City refused to carry SNL.
Maybe the Church is trying to save me from SNL? "Stop! Before you think of pushing play, remember Jesus and return to Jesus!"??
Bemused and befuddled, I watched the rest of The Dakota Fanning Show skit (hilarious, if you haven't seen it.) and learned a valuable lesson: blindly-placed banner ads (or any kinds of ads) are bad. Very bad.
*Please let it be noted that the PC display you see represented in the photo in no way reflects my own computer usage proclivities. The session of SNL viewing was done on a friend's PC and not on my own very lovely MacBook.
It's true. I am back. I have left the fog-shrouded hills of San Francisco for the smog-shrouded hills of Hollywood.
Why?
Well, part of it is because I have inexplicably fallen in love with this adorable dork: . . . and in spite of our gloomy recession was able to find an amazing job here three weeks after losing his old one.
We discussed it and agreed L.A. was a good option for both of us. For those of you who don't know, I was born here . . . (B-Day No. 2, I think in like West Covina)
. . . and have wanted to come back ever since the parents cruelly forced the family into Utah exile. I tried coming back for undergrad and ended up at BYU. I kind of came back for a short while when I was a missionary in East LA for the LDS Church, but, of course, I then had to go back to Utah. I tried coming back for grad school, and ended up in San Francisco at the Academy of Art University. So the plan was to head down after the MFA to find a kick ass position in account planning.
Well, the plan has been sped up slightly. I am done with the studio core of my program and the bulk of it now is finding (a) great internship(s) at an advertising agency (in Los Angeles, now, instead of San Francisco).
In the mean time, I am enjoying the beautiful weather in Southern California and am preparing to present for Mid-Point Review.
I am sorry for being M.I.A. on the blogging front for the past couple of weeks. Finals AND packing AND apartment hunting in a different part of the state have been a lot to juggle. Last week was spent just decompressing and unpacking the surprising amount of stuff Shane and I have both amassed (anyone need a lava lamp?).
Thanks to everyone who showed up to help us pack and send us off. Full set of Good-Bye pics here.
If you want to check out some pics of our new apt (sans furniture) click here.
We both love our new place. We are excited for all of the opportunities in L.A., to build a home together, and to defy the preconceptions of all of our SF friends and prove how wonderful and multifaceted L.A. really is.
This goes out to all of my lady friends out there, in particular my dear friend, Noemie, who showed me that awful Quattro ad weeks ago:
Ultimately, what irks me about this is holding on to cultural traditions that don't serve us. Tip-toeing around anatomy for the sake of Puritanical comfort breeds attitudes that make women ashamed of their own bodies and lead some people to think that when not being used for sex, vaginas are icky.
This reminds of (of course!) that wonderful female driven show, Sex and the City. In one episode Charlotte is so uptight she has never actually looked at her own vag. Its not until her mid- 30's that she finally grabs a hand-held mirror and takes a peek. What does she learn? It actually looks really nice! Also reminds of an episode where Samantha gets scrutinized by a guy for being "between waxes". She grabs a pair of clippers and turns the tables on him. He learns: Hey! It looks bigger!
While I am not suggesting we put overtly sexual material out in the general public sphere. I am saying calling a penis a "wee-wee" or a vagina a "who-ha" creates internal conflict about body image and negatively affects sexual interactions in the future, which then negatively impacts families. Whether you're a conservative Mormon or gay marriage activist, don't we all want stronger families?
So let's be honest with ourselves and each other and maybe we can help erode inferiority complexes and unrealistic expectations. And maybe advertisers won't sell products like nervous middle-schoolers.
(Current TV's Target Women is one my favorite things out there.)
And really it is worth noting. I mean, this is what happens when powerful forces collide and you have unexpected demand (that should have been expected). But not many are actually taking a look at what this means for KFC's future long term.
AdAge does a great job of describing the problem, and maybe some of the short-term fall out. It's really worth reading.
Ultimately, though, I don't think this one snafu is going to crumble KFC's chances of turning around their brand and sales.
In my humble opinion, Kentucky Grilled Chicken is not going to do it. But it sure will help. Some people have said KFC should own its unhealthiness, and be a guilty indulgence. Well, at some point that brand positioning gets a little tired if EVERYONE is doing it, and also, there are cheaper unhealthy indulgences, and I just don't think KFC can drop their prices much more and remain competitive, which means they will have to reduce food quality or portions (which last time I went to KFC was already suffering) and thus lose the enjoyment of indulging.
I see KFC's real hope, especially in this "downturn" economy, in reinforcing their family-friendliness. Convince me that I can feed my family well, without breaking the bank too much, at KFC. Even in a recession, people still want to order out, whether it's because they are tired or they want to celebrate a little or let loose.
The thing is, who wants to order toxic, fat-laden chicken and reconstituted potatoes to their family?
So I agree that grilled is a step in the right direction, but, I need to know that if order from KFC (and I will probably want to get some fried chicken, because, well, now that you mention it, it does sound kind of yummy) I can get some food that is FRESH.
Cut back on cheese covered and let me know that I can get some fresh yummy veggies or yams or red potatoes (with the skin) with that. Let me know that I can get some rolls that are whole grain (where butter and milk are not the two main ingredients) and maybe something with fresh (unglazed) berries for dessert.
KFC is about the fried chicken, and if it tastes as good as it did when I was kid, then it is pretty-darned good, but as a more health-conscious human being, I need to know that if I get a whole meal from KFC, it won't be all bad for me. I am willing to accept a little fried, if I know the meal as a whole is fresh and wholesome and shows some color and life on my plate (and those sad-looking brown green beans aren't going to cut it).
I remember when I went to this amazing Southern BBQ place in SF. I knew most of it was not super-healthy (much as I tried to convince myself by ordering the delicious mustard greens), but at least I knew that everything I ate was made that day and was made with good ingredients.
Right now, everything from KFC has that fresh-from-the-microwave aroma and that genuine, 5-gallon bucket stirred goodness.
That's right, Shabby Chic has gone belly up. And it's true, I am mostly writing this because I couldn't resist that play on words, but I do think it is an interesting development in the bankruptcies that have come with this recession.
For those of you who don't know, Shabby Chic was not just a nation-wide movement, it was an actual brand, started by a woman named Rachel Ashwell.
Shabby chic style was great if you had ovaries and liked comfortable furniture in which to appreciate your superfluous post-graduate degrees. But while the end of Shabby Chic, Inc. is blamed mostly on ill-timed expansion, I have to wonder if it isn't reflective of a deeper cultural trend.
Sure many home furnishings companies are going through tough times, but Shabby Chic was all about comfortable, new furniture that looked and felt like it was really old. Stuff that maybe you got at a flea market or conned your French grandma out of in exchange for some Julio Iglesias CDs and a bottle of California cabarnet.
It is because of Shabby Chic that words like "tea-stained" and "patina" are part of our vernacular and why you can use "sour cream" as a color while maintaining a straight face. Well . . . maybe just I can.
Shabby Chic was all about purchased history. Much like distressed, "antiqued" jeans, funky graphic tees from Urban Outfitters, and The OC Season 1 Soundtrack--it made you seem cool, like you had a rich life with colorful, obscure interests, while investing minimal time and energy.
But there is something really messed up about buying that. While we have always tried to co-op cool, what does it matter if you buy an Empire-era inspired secretary desk if you don't understand which Empire that desk is referencing?
We are departing from an era of excess, where we didn't mind spending top dollar for shabby chic and a gleaming SUV in the driveway to allegedly lug those charming treasures (although home delivery is nice) and I have heard throughout the previous months that Americans are returning to comfort foods and more traditional fashions, that thrift, rather than plush indulgence, is becoming a badge of pride. I retain a tentative hope.
We do know distressed jeans are dying, Shabby Chic is dead, and I think (I hope) that from now on, if we want to get something commercially produced we will embrace it completely (like Lady Gaga) and that if we want something with history, we will drag our collective asses away from Hulu/TiVO and go out live substantive enough experiences to fill our homes with things that really mean something to us. You know. Make it an actual home.
Many years ago, Quizno's lost my potential patronage by running this ad campaign:
Anytime it would pop up in my pre-TiVO TV-viewing, I would scramble for the remote. The rat things looked disgusting and their singing was so grating, I had to plug up my ears. This truly awful campaign combined with their exorbitant prices for a freakin' sandwich guaranteed I would never set foot in their stores (it was mostly the bad ads. I also became a Target devotee, merely because their ads were so pretty).
But, now Quizno's is offering better prices and a couple of really funny ads:
The first one is better, IMHO. Toaster sex+phallic sandwiches=fun for all!
. . . on the symbol of Recovery.gov, the government website designed to let us know what's up with Obama's attempt to make sure we don't end up with just my two cents in the bank.
If you go to the website, it makes for a very small presence, so when shrunken down to its actual proportions, the visual language inherent in the logo becomes rather meaningless, like collective patriotic murmurs.
That being said, if blown to full proportions, it's really pretty clever. Combining icons of patriotism, ecology, growth, manufacturing, health care, it manages to incorporate some of the major vehicles that Obama intends to use to advance our country and pull us out of this mess.
My first reaction, though, was to the different colors. I wanted to like them, but just couldn't. I think a bi-color palette would have been better. Or even mono-chromatic. The simpler the better. And then I realized what my problem with it was.
It was breaking some of the very basic rules of design I had been taught in school. Now I am by no means a great graphic designer, but I do know that unless you have to, do not create arbitrary divisions. The more you fracture the visual field, the more work you create for the eye, and the less readable your image is at a glance. This is especially important with a logo (especially a small logo). So don't create divisions that don't need to be there.
The Recovery Logo not only creates harsh divisions with bold, white segments, but then has different colors and little icons in each section!
It seems to me that the logo is all concept (a great concept), but wanting in truly great design.
It is trying to communicate a lot in a small space, but maybe that is exactly the problem. Perhaps the designer should have tried to convey one simple idea. "Unified work" or "new ideas" or something.
I want to like this logo more, but it lacks the visual power this program deserves. It ultimately comes off kind of weak and . . . like perhaps the latest iteration of a Target private-label product. Which I love in a fabric softener, but not in the most ambitious economic program to come out of Washington in decades.
*Thanks, Shane for showing me this blog post about the new logo and got my wheels churning politically.
I lost total track of time in Santa Fe. On Thursday, I had to ask Shane five times what the day was, and each time I fumbled toward panic at the thought that the week was almost over. I felt completely disconnected from school work, from email, blogs, news, etc. And I loved it.
My cell phone was largely unused last week; my unlimited texting largely neglected. I just didn't care. I know I used the internet at evenings to check email and facebook, but I honestly can't remember a single thing I looked at. I was far more interested in the people I was spending time with. Had I not had any internet access in New Mexico, I think my time there would have unraveled with equal satisfaction and pleasure. It was just so unnecessary.
We were at this wonderful natural spring spa, and Shane commented with chagrin on two girls texting away on their phones, oblivious to the beautiful cliffs and restorative waters. I conjectured then, and do so now, that we will reach a point when people will want to chuck technological "connectivity" in favor of REAL experiences with REAL people. In person.
If we look at history, there is always a backlash, a pendular swing from one extreme to another. I am sure this inundation of electronics and media will abate. Perhaps we see the beginning of this in the popular appeal of more interactive video games like Wii. Or maybe people will finally realize the whole point of having tech tools IS to spend more time with family, and they will stop being shackled by their electronics.
What I do know is that it was a refreshing reminder to see some people who don't live in a slick, urban, post-2.0 world and to be in the company of people who are so engaging and delightful, that I could totally forget my own tech addiction.
That being said, I was reading some Jon Steel on the train, and I am ready to sink my creative teeth into some juicy stuff, and for that . . . I will have to open my Mac.
*A full report on Spring Break is pending.
*On a side note, this is like the name of a really great little indie movie Off the Map. It's a fave of my friend, Daniel.
It has been sitting on my desk in an envelope for past three months: Citizen Kane. In truth, it has been sitting on the back shelf of my to-do list for the past 10 years. Any time discussion has turned to this movie, I have endeavored to silently but perceptively nod my head, lest my carefully crafted veneer of intellectualism be pierced.
Well, I have finally watched this movie, heralded by some as the greatest movie ever made. To which I say . . . meh.
Which is kind of what I expected from what I have heard from everyone else all of these years. I also turn to what I expected would be my explanation for why Citizen Kane is such a big deal, which is, that like many genre-defining works, it did what no one else had done up to that point. In truth, I can see how Citizen Kane has pretty much defined modern film-making. It's editing style, narrative/cinematic devices, and complex themes are still employed in movies today.
My beef with Citizen Kane is that, well, at certain points it seemed like a wonderfully crafted, artistic film and, for the most part, it seemed like a popular movie. The over-the-top music and some of the acting really contributed to this.
I will say that it did leave me thinking. Because one of the prevailing themes is that Kane lived his life basically striving to force others to love him on his terms. After the movie was over, and Shane and I sat in the dark, I wondered why this was true for this character.
A big part of the movie is the mystery of Rosebud, and at the end we realize it was the name of his childhood sled and are reminded of his beginnings being torn away from his parents (which was kind of no-duh. I mean, the dude was holding a snow globe at the end of his life and then at a very emotional turning point. You gotta figure it had to do with that fateful snowy day. I figured it was all about that from the get-go).
In thinking about this life-defining moment in Kane's life, it makes perfect sense that he would always want to make people love him on his terms. Torn away from his parents and "raised" by a banker, he would, of course, yearn for love, using that as a measure of self-worth. What is perhaps interesting is that he would never again want to enter into a relationship where he wasn't running the show. As a child, he implicitly trusted the love and acceptance of his parents (even if it was a less-than-ideal home). Why would he ever trust that again? They were the ones he gave him up.
By being the one in control, determining the measures of a successful relationship on his own, being always in the position of the benefactor without making meaningful, emotionally-vulnerable sacrifices, he ensures that he will never again be in a position of potential abandonment.
What interests me more is how this is generalizable to many more people. Perhaps men more than women, but nonetheless a dynamic I believe I have perceived in many relationships.
Anyway, I can now return the damned thing and cancel my Blockbuster Online account (their version of Netflix) and quit paying $10 a month to have a movie sit on my desk.
*inspired by a convo with Noemi on truly awful copy-writing.
The other day I was revving for another crazy-ass day of juggling that has become my life. I was in dire need of a coffee fix, and being at Shane's apartment, there was not a French press or coffee maker in sight. Having anticipated that such a day would come, I had bought a small jar of Folger's Instant Coffee.
I have never had instant coffee before. My introduction to coffee consisted of clandestine ventures to local coffee houses and midnight runs to 7-11 (which has better coffee than one would think).
I stirred in the brown flakes and watched with concern as it developed into a murky mess that looked nothing like my familiar deep brown bean brine (I guess I am feeling alliterative today). I doctored it with soy milk and some flavored simple syrup (because apparently my boyfriend doesn't believe in keeping household staples like sugar around) and took a tentative sip. I managed two more before I spat it out and gave up in disgust. I have had coffee at truck stops, convenience stores, and even Denny's, and I have NEVER had SOUR coffee. It was like a different drink altogether.
There goes $3.50 down the drain. I will never have Folger's Instant again.
Later on that night, Claudia and I were perusing Bloomingdale's post gelato when we came upon these charming coffee cups:
I want one for my desk! . . . that is when I have a desk . . . that I am paid to sit at.
They're only like $8, too, which is pretty sweet. And, then, that is when I heard the horrific news: Starbucks has decided to release a new line of instant coffee called VIA!
My first reaction was dismay and then a keen sense of betrayal.
Why? Would they do this? Why would Starbucks want me to suffer with this sour slop people call instant "coffee"?
I went home and did some research, and apparently the taste is not as reprehensible as Folger's special blend, but still I am not sure if this is really the best move. Especially I am concerned about these individual serving plastic packets on the go. It seems to contribute to packaging waste and if I am on the go, there is a Starbucks on my way to wherever I am going anyway! Okay, that last part was a joke.
Still, I raise the question everyone else does: how can the company who brought coffee snobbery to the American consciousness become the purveyor of powdered instant coffee?
I am not saying it is not possible, but I think "who" Starbucks is, is being compromised. I had just gotten excited about learning about their Clover-brewed coffee, which is supposed to be a whole new level of premium.
So how can you convince me that it is worth going into your store, where I can get the best-brewed coffee possible, and then tell me I can get comparable flavor from a packet of powder? They're going to have to choose whether they want to stand as sophisticated keepers of great coffee or populist purveyors of joe. I think judging from Starbuck's announced plans to produce a value menu, I think we all know which way they are going.
At least I can still get an over priced (yet incredibly delicious) cup of coffee at my local Blue Bottle, where my friend, Jade, and I recently enjoyed their venerable siphon pot coffee. It looks like a science experiment and tastes so rich and buttery and flavorful, no sugar or cream needed (seriously, why would you ruin this coffee with stuff?). Sigh. Maybe some day I can afford 20K for their coffee "system". And a stout Norwegian named Agnar to keep it going at all times.
Here I am. One traveler trying to figure things out in San Francisco.
Against all reason, I have managed to find a great deal of fun and happiness studying advertising at the Academy of Art, preparing for the day I get to bite my teeth into the "real world."
I don't believe we are defined by our 9-5, and so, ultimately, I define myself by the choices I make and the way I interact with the world.
I like getting to know new people and seeing things from others' perspectives. I am always open to new experiences. I like having deep conversations sure, but I find the best connections and real joys in life are found in the everyday and the trivial. So I am all about hanging out, watching some mindless television, pizza and beer, and fun music.
Going to the latest gallery opening is great, but so is a really awesome club (dancing is one of the best cathartic experiences ever!).
Spirituality is important to me. I wouldn't want to imagine life without a connection to the divine.
