Well, I just came across this interesting MediaPost article on people of "my generation": Conclusion? Yes. Organized religion is taking a diminished role in the lives of Americans, but obviously that desire for quiet, reflective thinking (as takes place in prayer) remains.
I would say most of us know people many people who eschew the label of "religious," but like to still think of themselves as "spiritual."
The whole article is an an interesting read on the attitudes and demographics of "Millenials" (I still don't know how I feel about that moniker), even if you're not into marketing or sociology.
I recently read this New York Times article (fave pub) looking at depression through the lens of evolutionary psychology, speculating that depression is the result of "ruminating" aka pondering/introspecting/analyzing...basically thinking
I think, therefore I am...sad.
Thinking people are more likely to be depressed. Great. Tell me something I don't see in my own life.
The article goes on and on in an exhausting academic debate about the evolutionary benefits of having so many depressed people in our species.
What stuck out to me was this argument that there is an evolutionary/biological foundation for rumination/introspection/deep thinking. This is something people want and need in their lives.
There are some smarties/creative types out there that think they have the corner market on higher thinking, but if late night Boy Scout camping conversations taught me anything it's that people from every walk of life in our society share times of deep reflection and share the same concerns and conclusions.
Because I am in this cursed field of advertising, I am going to draw back conclusions to branding and marketing which is--why aren't we we creating things that speak to this obviously deep desire of people?
We make ads that speak to the desire to make love, to be loved, to be victorious, we encourage companies to be social to address people's need for community, and yet where is the brand/campaign/website that encourages users to engage in deliberative reflection?
There is a reason that Eat, Pray, Love was on the bestseller's list for over two years, and why the Oprah Book Club was such a big hit, in general. People want to think about these things. They feel better for having had these thoughts, for having a scaffold on which to hang these yearn-filled threads, for knowing there are others with the same wonderings and private struggles of internal reconciliation without feeling like a complete lunatic.
This all reminds me of the once beautiful meaning of the word 'melancholia,' which did not mean sadness, but meant deep, quiet, extended thinking about a question or problem.
Durer captured it best in his work entitled, Melancholia:
In the meantime, I am going to be on the look out, for campaigns/brands that offer this, and for opportunities in which such could exist.
The Grammys suck. I think the last time I actually watched the Grammys, I was 15. Does anyone care about the Grammys anymore? Well. I am sure some people do. What I have noticed, however, is that in my conversations with people since the Grammys few people have talked about the winners but people have definitely talked about Lady Gaga's Grammy "performances" (and Pink's, too, of course).
This woman (Gaga) is brilliant. Sure her pop music is great to dance to. It has a certain Euro-electro-pop that has breathed new life into the American pop scene. But what I love about Lady Gaga is that she has crafted this larger than life spectacle (and brand).
To my way of thinking, she has brought post-modern art to the masses and made them love every minute of it.
I mean how is her work really that different from Jeff Kouns?
Or Andy Warhol (whose hijinks were arguably the greatest part of his work)?
The painter in me just has to love this.
She has created a persona that extends beyond a couple of music videos (*cough* Sasha Fierce!) to the stage, red carpet events, paparazzi photos, interviews,everything she does.
She manages to keep everyone interested without resorting to cheap parlor tricks like flashing cooch in paparazzi photos.
What I think is really interesting is that part of her aesthetic is an aggressive, seductive repulsion. It can be light and poppy and at the same time have a hard, sometimes uncomfortable edge. Which, I think in this climate is exactly what people need.
Anything too "pretty" would be out-of-touch and wildly idealistic, but at the same time I think people want some sense of celebration (which is why I think The Black-Eyed Peas' I Gotta Feeling was such a wild hit this past summer). Adopting Gaga's hard edge (and also her debauched dance club celebration) can make someone feel invincible, though; feel stronger in an uncertain world by defying convention.
This unique blend is, I believe, a big reason for her appeal across various social groups. Her inspiring fashions are also about personal creativity rather than unattainable labels, which is appealing in our current economy.
And when you're looking for bang-for-the-buck, nothing beats her over-the-top shows. If you gave me a choice between tickets to a Gaga concert or a performance of La Boheme, I hate to say it, but I am going to have to take the Gaga tickets and am pretty sure I would walk away with longer-lasting memories. Her performances have raised our expectations of creativity.
What is notable about Gaga's success is that she was this no-name weird sound that emerged to dominate the pop culture scene. I think she is great example of how viral sharing which so many young people do (a good reason to have a kick-ass music video that makes people say "You HAVE to see this" to their friends) can lead to huge commercial demand. The Wall Street Journal actually wrote a really great article on how Lady Gaga represents the future of the music industry, parlaying viral success into capital rewards in other channels.
One of my regrets about leaving LA, however, is that somehow, listening to Gaga outside of the boundaries of West Hollywood is just not the same. I guess it loses something of its ironic appeal.
It has already launched in Europe, I saw Sony Make.Believe signs in the Panama City airport last week, but, at last, this new campaign for Sony has finally reached the U.S. and I am proud/thrilled to see it here.
While I was not part of the concepting of make.believe, during my time at 180 LA, I was thoroughly indoctrinated in the campaign, even working on some projects that will branch out of the philosophy of make.believe.
I don't think people realize what a big deal it really is for Sony--a brand which straddles so many different fields: music, entertainment, electronics, gaming, and computers--to have a unifying message/ideology of being a brand of imagination and realization. Drawing on the early history of its dichotomous founders (as I believe many brands should look at their birth for a sense of identity), Sony is striving to position itself as a brand that is not only visionary and imaginative internally, but that allows people to realize their own visions through Sony products.
Having worked with some of the marketing and R&D people at Sony, I can see that this new philosophy has already inspired and excited some of the people at Sony and motivated them to change the way they approach product design. I hope this philosophy becomes truly infectious at Sony and I am eager to see what comes out of Sony (and 180) in the next few years.
I was little miffed to see that no planners were credited in this long list of credits in an article by Media Post's Agency Spy. Ah well. Planning is fun enough with accolades.
(above is the vomit of this digital marketing behemoth)
Perhaps it is because creatives AND business people are the biggest bunch of navel-gazers on the planet, but I am SO sick of hearing about "the future of advertising". "The future of advertising is . . . !" or "John, what would YOU say is the future of advertising?" or "Is advertising dead?"
It's like the frivolity of fashion forecasting. In fact the parallels between our industry and the fashion industry are staggering (for all that industry types loathe fashion ads). The point being, you can sit on the red carpet and postulate that patent leather will be the must-have for fall, but people with real style aren't very affected by these trends. They disdain the trendy and go for a unique style that conveys their values and outlook on the world and that works with their body types. They understand that jumping on fall's fad will leave them looking like an idiot in spring.
Not that I am the most stylish person in the world, but I do enjoy the impact of smart aesthetic choices in clothes, and I know that there are items in my closet that I wore in high school that still garner praise and still look very fresh and relevant and can be found echoed in the "latest trends".
It's like vintage Chanel or the brand identity designs of Paul Rand. They still look great, they are still appealing, and they are still very effective.
Rather than trying to figure out the next gimmick, I think it is the role of good advertising/marketing/pr/creative agencies to help individual companies find their own "sense of style", then as gimmicks and trends come along, like the latest social media app (it's scary how easily that word comes now) or a new media outlet, you can work with the brand to decide, "Does this fit? Hm. Maybe it kind of makes my ass look fat, let's go with the distressed oxford shirt. If we we change out the buttons and pull it with a cool blazer, we can really make it work." Ultimately, I guess I am saying its about the identity/message, not the medium and not the funky tools (*cough* drop shadow!).
PS-I will confess I am still irked that everyone started wearing blazers with jeans a few years ago because I enjoyed being the only person wearing that in high school.
I know I am past-due on blogging on my recent trip back East, but as I was thumbing through my on-line version of New York Magazine this morning, I came across this story that made me stop dead in my tracks and rush to my office du blogging (the couch by our terrace). full article click here
Apparently the fashion designer famous for must-have wedding gowns, Vera Wang, is going to take a serious scissor-stab at her brand by competing on the D(C?)-List celebrity dance show, Dancing with the Stars.
My fellow fashionista foil, Tai, and I were aghast.
It's not that Dancing with the Stars is really THAT awful. It has brought back to our pop-culture consciousness such greats as Mario Lopez and Marie Osmond.
It's just that Vera is SO wrong for DWTS! She probably has the chops to do it. I mean, the woman was a competitive figure skater, for heaven's sake. The thing is, Vera's designs are known for intelligent simplicity and sophistication. As you can see from the above pictures DWTS is anything but. This really makes Vera step against brand message.
I also question whether the woman is even capable of the wide-grinning showmanship that is often required of contestants to keep viewers voting to keep them on the show. If you have ever seen Vera in interviews one word comes to mind: deadpan.
I seriously hope Marc Malkin is wrong on this one. While it would be a fascinating watch, I think it would ultimately rather undermine the strong brand that Vera has crafted over the years.
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.
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.
. . . 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.
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.
I was reading BusinessWeek online and found this article on the rebranding of Xerox; a little more reading led me to this article on the rebranding of FedExKinko's. Obviously, it must not be a super-great time to be in the copy machine business and both are trying to figure out how to hold on to customers.
Xerox rebranded in an attempt to refresh their brand in the minds of America and to get them to start thinking of Xerox as being technologically innovative rather than staid and established. The thing is--what has changed about black and white copiers in the past ten years? And has Xerox ever really made amazing color printers? According to BW, they have been cranking out new stuff: "two-thirds of Xerox's revenues in 2007 will come from products introduced in the last two years".
FedExKinko's is dropping the Kinko's and changing their name to FedExOffice, which is funny, because everyone still calls it Kinko's. FedEx wants to cement in people's minds that they are not just about copies and shipping, they are about providing you with everything you need to "get things done."
It seems to me that neither one of these companies is really addressing the issue at hand.
I have worked in offices. Most of the time you don't need anything super fancy. But sometimes you need stuff that looks extra sharp to represent your office. You could go to a printing press, but they're super expensive and a lot of times what you need isn't big enough to require a large-scale press service. Your office admin can, of course, fiddle around with the office copier, but the results are almost always disappointing.
If you are a lone wolf (like me, the grad student), you also don't need a run of 5,000 prints. You just need some business cards or a mini portfolio on nice paper. "Go to Kinko's! . . . ahem . . . FedExOffice!" you say. Except everyone I know loathes and despises FedExKinko's. The service staff is often lazy, they frequently fumble your order, the prices can be outrageous, and the steps you have to take to get a few print outs from your flash drive can be ridiculously convoluted. I, personally, try to print everything I can on my HP. I don't care how many ink cartridges or reams of paper I have to buy. Anything has got to be better than going to Kinko's. Ahem. FedEx Office.
Ultimately, though, that is what people need: a decent way to get some nice-looking print materials to represent their office/themselves.
Most of the time, we can't do this on our own. I don't have a laminator, or a binder, and I have no clue how to calibrate a printer. The office admin shouldn't have to fumble with a piece of equipment the size of a small refrigerator and with the failure rate of a Yugo to print out a few tri-fold brochures or a flyer.
Solution?
Well, I suppose FedExOffice could work on the real problem, which is not that people's imaginations are limited by the connotations of Kinko's, but rather that their desire is limited by shoddy service and difficult-to-manage ordering procedures.
Or Xerox could expand their thinking from merely building more big machines for offices to being a source for great mid-range printing for businesses . . . as an actual print-service provider.
Digital is great, but there is still something to be said for being able to hold something in your hand or seeing it realized in person.
If Trader Joe's ever did decide to do television advertising, I think this would be perfect in tenor and tone. Truly brilliant post by Carl on YouTube.
Not that Trader Joe's needs advertising. It's like when I was given the assignment to work on In-N-Out. I went to one of their stores and had to wrestle an old Asian lady to the ground for a dirty, ketchup-smeared table. Some businesses are just that great. They don't need someone telling them to buy, people just want to go there.
On a side note, that Trader Joe's parking lot is in San Francisco! We go there all the time!
Well, apparently Donald Wildmon and his American Family Association are calling for a boycott of Pepsi because of their recent advertisement featuring a gay protagonist, and also because of Pepsi's financial contributions to the No on 8 campaign.
I can't wait to see the AP story of Wildmon caught with one of the young male interns.
Here is the fun ad:
In fact, I was actually meaning to blog about this before, but on the last day of finals, there were Pepsi promotion workers all over downtown SF handing out the new Pepsi Max.
Now bloggers everywhere have been throwing a fit over the new Pepsi re-design, blathering about how awful they think it is, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I am going to be a voice of dissent here and say--you know what? I don't hate it. I actually kind of like it. It's clean, slick. It feels kind of grown up in a way. It is, of course, doomed to look dated in a short while. But that is the nature of Pepsi--reinvention, young, etc., Coke is the classic, the maintstay.
I would never have tried Pepsi Max without that promo guy (who generously gave me two), but I really like the taste. Nice and sweet. Not artificial. I would definitely drink it again, especially after finding out they are out there pissing off guys like Donald Wildmon.
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.
