Brilliant ad here from Audi! Gives a whole new imagery to their identity.This one is making the rounds, via BrandFlakes, Brian Shaler via Twitter, et al.
Lately I’ve been reading Paula Scher’s Make It Bigger. Although this book is almost five years old, I would highly recommend it for anyone with even a mild interest in advertising design. Scher is something of a design industry icon, a partner at Pentagram, and arguably one of the most influential figures of the last 20 years in the design community.
One of the questions raised in the book is What is the Value of Design? Scher notes the damage that is done by treating design as a freebie that is included with a media buy:
Copy and design are thrown in for free. And if they’re free, they’re worthless. There is nothing to defend or protect, no standard to bear, no paradigm to change, nothing to elevate. There is no extra value in something intelligent or well crafted. If the “creative” is thrown in for free, then all that has value is the media space itself. If you take that thought to its logical conclusion, what fills the media space is essentially irrelevant, as long as the client feels satisfied enough to continue purchasing it. That creates a completely amoral design climate.
Having worked extensively over the past three years with publications that are free to consumers, I have seen this first hand. Such publications make money solely on advertising revenue. Once again: buy the ad space; design is free. It’s not that I have it in for free publications. On the contrary, they have been and continue to be clients of mine. But what invariably happens is that there are two losers in this model: design (as defined as well-executed communications pieces) and the end-user (the person that actually picks up the free magazine).
The readers of these magazines lose because what they end up with is a publication that usually does not communicate with them effectively. If the magazine is free to the reader then he/she [the reader] has no voice in shaping the magazine. Subscriptions and cover prices are the usual collateral that force a magazine to listen to its readers. By removing the cost to consumers, the publisher has absolved itself of accountability to its readers. The publisher is now accountable only to its advertisers - its only revenue stream. This is what Scher refers to as an “amoral design climate.”
As we all know, advertisers are famous for telling us about what is most important to them (usually themselves), which is frequently not what is important to us as consumers. Designers become mere button-pushers, executing poorly crafted narcissistic messages which ultimately fail to connect effectively with the target market. And consumers are forced to make due with a product that ultimately falls short of their expectations. Many times with such free publications, there are no other alternatives in the marketplace - save competing free publications that claim to “do it better” by whatever criteria they and their advertisers measure “better.”
Surprisingly, the ones that are hurt most by all of this are the advertisers themselves, as they often become perceived by their customers as not listening to consumers wants/needs. In the consumer’s mind, said advertisers are “necessary evils” in whatever the particular buying process may be. And that is never good for a brand’s image.
Here we have a much anticipated look at how the Firebrand interface is going to work. Another source for wasting time doing great research promises to be here soon, as Firebrand promises to “turn the commercial break into a commercial destination.”
Wow! So much has been going on the past 2 weeks…
Finally made the big leap: opening up shop for myself. No longer just a freelance gig, Brand Aid is officially my full time job. So much to do: getting a proper website built, email and web hosting, Lions and Tigers and Bears… oh my!
Landed a big account with a publisher in Atlanta. Mostly production work for a couple of local magazines, but with it comes the opportunity to do a series of ads for an Atlanta-based real estate investment group that will be featured 10 times next year on A&E’s Flip This House. Some cool before and after stuff.
Just finished the third in a series of ads for an exotic stone importer with offices in Hilton Head, Charlotte, Charleston and Lawrenceville (outside of Atlanta). Will link back to the ads once the portfolio page of the website is up and running.
Stay tuned for more updates.
Thanks to Stephanie over at 2695 Design for the heads up on this one. oSkope media in Zurich & Berlin has a prototype out for a visual search engine. The idea is that, much like in a bricks & mortar retail environment, it is much more intuitive to browse visually. Check out the oSkope Search primer video.
They already have eBay, Amazon & Flikr on board, so it will be interesting to see how this one develops.
Great post here by way of Brand Flakes. Explains perfectly why products & services that do nothing more than copycat the market leader (i.e. “me-too products & services”) rarely ever succeed.
Businesses would do well to realize that in order to take market share from the market leader, you have do more than imitate… you must provide significant differentiating value.
This a must-read for anyone considering providing new products/services to a market.
Many thanks to Toyota for the Outkast song that is now playing on continuous loop in my head.
With that said, it appears that Toyota is borrowing a page from social networking apps like MySpace & Facebook in order create a community of creative folks conversing about the Toyota brand. The sales pitch for HEYA goes like this: Toyota wants to listen to your thoughts on their marketing and print ideas, their car design, and most of all to hear what creative young adults care about.
The incentive is that Toyota is offering $2500 sponsorships for “your projects.” Maybe you have a creative web site idea, want to do a graphic design art show, or have an idea to creatively raise awareness for an issue that matters to you. This could be your chance to get Toyota’s help. No indication if sponsored projects must be Toyota themed.
If managed well, this could be great for Toyota. Actually involving the creative consumer in your brand/product development.
The only catch is that Toyota is limiting HEYA membership to 500, and there is an application/screening process - a great idea for two reasons: One, it makes it much easier to manage the community and carry on an actual dialogue with the members; Two, having a limited membership gives participants the feeling of exclusivity - not just anyone can join. Members must be chosen. Brilliant ego stroking on the part of Toyota, because creatives just hate having their egos stroked, right?
I’ll know within 5 days if I make the cut.
I love free swag! Especially when it comes courtesy of Plaid, the Connecticut-based agency that writes my favorite blog on the web Brand Flakes For Breakfast.
Seriously, if you don’t already read this blog, you need to. It has a great mix of industry news, inspiring work, and humor. And while you’re at it, check out some of Plaid’s work. They’ve done work for Janet Jackson, Switchfoot and several other household names.
Many thanks to Darryl for the awesome tee, and the cool buttons as well!
I’ve been saying for years that for brands, it’s no longer enough to have the biggest ads in the most places running more frequently than anyone else. This point is illustrated by recent backlash on the web to Apple’s new iPod Nano commercials.
Old School mentality was make it impossible for the consumer to ignore your message. New school mentality is make the consumer actually want to pay attention to your brand. See the previous post on this blog about Jack Links Beef Jerky.
Firebrand has huge implications for brands that develop “brandfans.” Imagine the marketing implications (especially interactive) of targeting consumers who have chosen to give you an audience!
I’m going on record to say that this medium for branding messages is going to be huge. It may take a little time to catch on, but Firebrand will become a legitimate consideration for any serious advertising campaign. It will spawn many imitators just as we have seen with social networking applications like MySpace, Facebook, etc.
It’s going to be interesting to watch Firebrand evolve and see which brands will be the first to best utilize this new medium. Pay attention brands. This is your opportunity to get on board before the bandwagon arrives.
Let me start by stating for the record that I’m a huge fan of Quiznos subs. I have been for several years now. But on a recent visit to my local Quiznos I encountered what seems to be a big mistake on the part of the brand management team at Quiznos.
In the past, Quiznos offered to add items like lettuce, tomato, olives, etc. to your sandwich at no charge, even if those items were not part of the sandwich as it is advertised. However, during this visit I was informed that adding lettuce to my Prime Rib & Peppercorn Sub (because adding lettuce makes anything healthy, right?) would now cost me $.30 because the sandwich doesn’t officially come with lettuce. I asked if this was a “management thing” or a “Quiznos thing,” and I was informed that it was in fact a “Quiznos thing.”
Bad move Quiznos, bad move. Welcome to a simple lesson straight out of Brand Management 101.
Today’s lesson begins with the consumer. It is reasonable to believe that the average consumer understands that prices usually rise over time. Inflation happens, cost of living goes up, and in parallel cost of doing business goes up. It’s a no-brainer that at some point prices rise. And an increase of the cost of goods may very well be the reason for Quiznos’ decision.
However, while the fact that prices generally rise does not necessarily trigger a negative reaction by the consumer, charging them for things that were previously provided at no charge almost certainly ruffles some feathers. You have now turned your brand into “the bad guy.” This is something to avoid at all costs.
I propose a better solution. Let’s just say for the sake of argument that now only 1 in 3 customers will pay for the extra toppings that were previously free. In the current model, Quiznos stands to make an extra $.30 for every three customers it serves. Instead, Quiznos should’ve just raised the price of every sandwich $.20. That’s such a small amount, most people would hardly notice and they would avoid the negative effect of charging their customers for something they have always provided for free in the past. And if you do the math, they would actually make more money! $.60 for every three customers they serve, rather $.30 for every three customers (based on the assumptions in the example).
