I didn't vote for him.

Just wanted to jot down some thoughts on the movie.

Over the last couple days, I've had several conversations with people outside of our class about 'Inconvinient Truth'. Some were heated debates, which made me not like my friend, and some were barely conversations. It seems everyone has an opinion, informed or otherwise.

I don't like the term "global warming". Generally, I use the typically Republican term of "climate change". Not because I'm republican, I don't associate with either party, I vote on issues. Global warming is too definative a term to describe what is going on, especially when there are too many unanswered questions left.

Anyways, my issue with the movie is the fact that it was a movie. I have a very hard time taking this film seriously when I know Al Gore is at home polishing his Oscar and counting his money. It's very convinient how he came across all this information that was not preciously available to the public. Politcal influence and name dropping go a long way, don't they Mr. VP? Had this been a Discovery Channel special, or National Geographic special developed and backed by a reputable scientist or scientific community, I would be more apt to take this to heart.

I don't know if you know this, but Al isn't a scientist, and he didn't invent the internet. If you believe that he is, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. He is a man on a very commendable crusade to get American people to change their environmentally damaging ways. I have no problem with that. That's great. That's amazing. I'm sure his family is proud. While more people are likely to listen to Al Gore than a scientist with 12 degrees from varying institutions, who is the more reputable source?

It's crazy how all these diagrams, graphs, maps, facts, and figures are just now available to the general population, thanks to Al's investigation. Apparently they were always there, the ubiquitous "they" just didn't want "us" to know about it.

There are 3 ways this could go:
1. This movie does for the EPA what Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" did for the meatpacking industry. Regulations out the ass, but for the betterment and protection of society. We all become accutely aware of what is going on and make a conscious effort to change it. Al Gore is elected president.

2. We find out in 3 months, years, decades, whatev, that all his "facts" were exaggerated and misconstrued. We lose trust in yet another gov't official, and become more confused about the state of the environment.

3. Someone rebuts this film with facts, figures, diagrams, blah blah blah demonstrating that is not a "world crisis" but an expected event consitent with previous warmings and coolings of the earth. I mean, c'mon, this thing is like 6 billion years old, this was bound to have happened once before.

I'll buy parts of it. I'm glad it got people talking, and at least considering reevaluating the way they live. Maybe it's the best scare tactics ever developed.

The State of Becoming Green

Its nice to see a reading devoted to the change and evolution to green design. I think its an important evolution, one from a million miles of wasteful plastic packaging- to minimalist more enviornmentaly friendly wrapers. Its funny you can see this in some products, while others have packaging you have to disassemble with a swiss army knife.

I personaly cant wait to see the day we can rid of that awful cumbersome plastic packaging. You know the one that is sealed together so tight, then bubbled around the product inside...good ridance- and well, I guess the enviornmental aspects of a new evolution are a plus too :).

blogging "Just to see you smile" Kelley Footlong

OK LATE NIGHT STUDIOS ARE BETTER THEN READING AND BLOGGING. SAY KELLEY FURLONG 5 TIMES REALLY FAST IT WILL TURN INTO KELLEY FOOT-LONG HEHEHE. SORRY PAUL,

OK ANYWHO READING... SWEET!

I THINK THAT ANYTHING THAT CAN BE ASSEMBLED AND REASSEMBLED IS AWSOME AND WHY NOT. IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO RECYCLE EVERYTHING LIFE WILL BE GREAT. TO MAKE REUSING SAFER,FASTER AND THUS MORE COST EFFECTIVE, PLASTIC AND METAL COMPONENTS AND HAVING PRICING EFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT WOULD MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE. GREAT ENDING QUOTE AND SHORT READING! YES!

PEACE OUT HOMEY G FUNKS

in a continuous state of becoming

this was an interesting reading as it addressed the sustainability of our current lifestyle. this is a really important issue, but i thought this reading mostly some scary stories (like the television sets and circuit boards that are release toxic pollutants), and the information was too shallow to really get into the topic. in some ways, it seemed sort of like a "tomorrowland' sort of writing, focusing on very specific things that the author was positive would soon happen. i think it was informational, but it is definetly very one sided.

Sounds like a great Idea

I completely agree with the steps that are being taken in reusing objects. People have had great ideas for years now on how to improve production to benefit and preserve the world. The problem is that not everyone is doing this. As beneficial as many of these ideas are on the environment, many companies do not put forth the effort. Cars can be ran on water, corn, even hemp, all being objects we do not run out of or can regrow, and they don't pollute the air. Unfortunately this hasn't happened because the oil companies would loose to much money. There seems to be a lot of underlying problems even when trying to be environmentally friendly. For instance even though recycling is great, the factories that break down the materials to be reused pollute the air. It's great to see that many people are aware and are trying to change things for the better. I can only hope that in the future some of the larger companies will jump on the environmentally friendly band wagon, for the sake of the environment regardless if they take a hit financially.

Not too bad

It's a breath of fresh air to hear such a pleasant idea, however, how will the general consumer population be pursuaded to abide? Don't get me wrong, recycling is a good thing, but as of right now, its rather demanding. Items of high similiarity may or may not be recyclable, bottles must be rinsed out, the caps need to be taken off, etc. I think the first step should be to make the act of recycling easier in order to help twist the arms of general consumers. Then this idea can be filtered into the workforce. It will take time just like anything else, but the important thing to remember is who has to accept this idea.

It's about, like, the Earth, man...

OMG itz t3h hippi3z!!!!

It's amazing how I don't have a lot to say when I kind of agree with the article. I don't know that this whole shift will happen in my lifetime, but it seems like a pretty cool thing, ya know, for the planet and stuff. How convinient to read this right after Earth Day... hippy conspiracy maybe?
Eventually, yeah, everyone will jump of this sustainability bandwagon once it becomes more cost effective. And once it's hella cheaper to recycle or refurbish what's already out there than create something new, the article is totally right, we'll be more focused on making quality "stuff". The better made, better looking, and better functioning the "stuff", the longer it will be around, giving us more time to figure out exactly what the hell to do with it once it finally craps out.

Uh... I guess I'll go hug a tree now.

In a Continuous State of Becoming

It's great to think that the world would be a much better place if people would just recycle. However, there are too many lazy people in the world for that to actually be something of interest to the average person. I for one am one of them. On the other hand when it comes to designing things that can be broken down and morphed into some else, I think is a great stride. One thing in this reading that I didn't really understand was the biodegradable casing for prepaid cell phones, when the credit runs out on the phone wouldn't the user just go out and buy more minutes? I thought that the fact that Afghans recycle bricks from previous structures was a practice that would really come into handy in the US. As much as we tear down and rebuild it's seems more cost effective to reuse those materials.

the price of sustainability

I love this idea: "To make reusing safer, faster, and thus more cost-effective, plastic and metal components should be stamped with codes indicating their provinance and their chemical composition. And the pricing of products should reflect their environmental impact, their cost to public health, their psychological benefits, their social merits, and their geo-political implications." I wish that this will one day occur, and if designers take a stance to make it happen, it could. However, will people really care? Walmart wouldn't sell their cheap, short-lived products at a higher cost because of the space they take in a landfill, and there are too many people who can't afford it anyway. Quality costs money, and a lot of people don't think about it when they're making a purchase. A lot of less-developed countries with lower environmental standards will still be making the same low-quality products because people will still buy it. The same should happen for foods that are unhealthy- why is junk food so cheap, while health food is so expensive when obesity is a nationwide problem? Sustainability is definitely becoming more and more of a pressing issue, and getting a lot more attention these days. If laws were passed to enforce sustainability, it would be an amazing miracle, that I hope would not come too late.

eating surf 'n' turf....hip and daring?

It's strange that watching Melrose place, eating surf 'n' turf in revolving restaurants, singing Frank Sinatra in karaoke bars and sipping girly drinks is considered hip or daring at all. Unless you could potentially vomit from the extremely slow moving revolving restaurant. It sounds pretty posh, expensive and mainstream to me. How can watching Melrose Place help you to escape culture? Isn't it a prime time television show of trendy 20-somethings and pool-side apartment drama?
Even though VH1 pop-up videos are a thing of the past, cultural wit, criticism, and camp pop up everywhere from Saturday Night Live to "Scary Movie 1-3" to "Another Teen Movie" to Alanis Morisette mocking Fergie- while the material they are mocking are still currently popular. These are all in the form of entertainment- but I believe that the supporters and the rebels enjoy their humor to a certain extent. They're mocking the current "cool" and it's really funny. Or at least I think it is.

Was this the same reading?

I don't really kow what to respond to since the reading failed offer different information than the last. Was this the second part to last times reading or something? But in a sense, the reading did touch again upon the "So bad its good" tactic, giving the youthful consumer the feeling of control. I think this attitude as well as guerilla marketing techniques offer clever solutions to a constantly evolving young culture, however, timing and relevence is important. How obsure and off the all can you be? How much is too much? Fine lines need to be drawn in order to attract attention from the consumers rather that detract it.

Not that ironic

This article seemed to restate the content of the last. To an extent people do see through trendy advertising yet they still buy the products. The article states that the "cool" trend is to wear clothing that has not yet become mainstream. This being so, how is a company suppose to sell that image when by doing so it is making the image mainstream. The most successful way to sell an item, in my opinion, would be to have a jump on the rest of the competition when defining a cool, non-mainstream trend. Companies do this, like the text states, by sending spy's out in the world to see whats considered cool. The only problem with this is that soon every company will be selling the same trend rendering it mainstream and non-cool. If people want to be different they should define their individual style, and not base it of of what the other "different" people are doing. The best idea, while being risky, would be for a company to reinvent or come up with their own style. If it catches on everyone will know that they did it first, and will want to purchase their clothing over the competitors.

Indie Inc

Bla, Bla, Bla
Really, tell me something I don't know. By now everyone should be considered cool, with the way styles come and go and companies are constantly rebranding themselves. We've all had the opportunity to be cool at some point. The question is why do we care so much what people think or how they look, what there're wearing. It seems to me that you'll get further by just being yourself.
On the other hand I can understand why there are these style hunters out there. However, I find it far more interesting to look at styles in other countries more so then what happening here in the US. Not to say that there aren't really savvy style trends in the US I just think that in order to really promote a certain trend it's wise to research outside the realm of the familar.
The section in this reading that's talking about the "Rock-and-Roll CEO's is really interesting to me because it would seem that once you're at that age you would be completely settled into yourself. As I grow older I've found that while you're in your twenties you're really just finding yourself and as you settle into your thirties you become more comfortable with who you are.

technology...damn

ok so this is an old post but these damn blogs are screwing me around so this post is the one from "cool" marketing. Marketing seemed to finally start to get smart and look towards the real audience, the teens. But this artical still pissed me off because of the way that they decieded to pick what was cool. everyone has there own personality and style and i think that whats considered "IN" takes personalitys away for each individual. and i have never herd "People in Black" i agree that the street art is its own unique style and that different cultures identitys were stollen by big branding companies and that would piss me off. But really whats new in the articals we a reading they all seem to be the same and most of them are frusturating!

more blogging fun

Posting a response to this reading feels redundant since it pretty much failed to add anything new that couldn't have been comprehended from the last section. What the author is failing to realize is exactly what unsuccessful businesses are missing; we are not a bunch of idiots (for the most part). We get the point, there is no need to beat us over the head with the same crap over and over. It doesn't matter that CEO's are living rock star lives, they are not the new rock stars and even if they were, it would just be a passing fad like everythings else and completely inconsequential to this discourse.

The only significant point that is brought up has to do with companies not taking themselves too seriously. I think this is an important note, even though the author quickly passed over it. You can't tell people what to think or do, the most you can hope for is to influence them in some way. If you don't understand this you're liable to come off as being conceited and high-sounding. Companies that do understand what they mean to their customers, as well as what their customers mean to them, will be the ones that make a connection. It's just like meeting a person in a real life situation. We are able to learn alot about someone based on the very subtle details; body language, clothing, demeanor, attitude, etc; and we can usually tell if someone has a hidden agenda. The same goes for companies. If they are trying to leach on to a passing fad or fool us in any number of ways, we are going to see through it. The more straight-forward and unpresuming they are, the more effective their advertising will be.

You're an individual... just like everyone else.

I'm just going to define a few terms before I start.

irony:
1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning
2. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected

camp:
something that provides sophisticated, knowing amusement, as by virtue of its being artlessly mannered or stylized, self-consciously artificial and extravagant, or teasingly ingenuous and sentimental.

Ok. Having defined those, I can move on to my point.

THERE IS NOTHING IRONIC ABOUT NICHE MARKETING.
Should I state that again or was that clear?
The whole purpose of these stupid "cool headhunters" is to expose and exploit a subculture to use its' tricks and identity to appeal to a mass market to make more money. THERE IS NOTHNG IRONIC ABOUT THIS. By invading the indie subculture like the article pointed out, turning around and making it available to the mass market at an incredibly jacked up price, as they put it "making the old new again", is exactly was what expected. It really irritates me when people do not know the proper use of the word "irony".

On to "camp".
Camp isn't even present any more. The camp Andy Warhol and John Waters created died. It's not about those principles any more. It's now about digging up the corpses of the past, screen printing it on a backpack and selling it for an arm and a leg at Urban Outfitters. Fuck that. Divine rolls in his/her grave every time someone under 14 rents a copy of Pink Flamingos and doesn't get it. The whole drag queen subculture which embraced and killed camp, bastardized itself when it put Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes in a dress. Those goddman cool headhunters found the last exploitable subculture and sold it to Hollywood for their souls.

What the fuck does Chairman Mao have to do with Anna Sui, aside from the fact that they are both asian?
How would Che feel knowing his images are screen printed on tshirts all over the country and sold to kids who, not only can't spell his name properly, but only bought the shirt because they saw Zach de la Rocha wearing one?
What kind of bullshit is this?

And what was that whole thing about "rock n' roll CEO's"? There is nothing "rock n' roll" about having a basketball court instead of a conference room. It's just stupid and impractical.
There is nothing "rock n' roll" about Diesel's CEO riding a fucking DUCATI to work. Get a Harley!
Rock n' roll is Keith Richards saying he snorted his father's ashes in a line of coke.
Rock n' roll is Ozzy Osbourne admitting he just recorded his first album ever SOBER.
Rock n' roll is sticking to an image, not slipping into one like a cheap Armani-knock-off suit because that's what's cool.

This whole idea of giving products and image and a history and "feel" is probably one of the most difficult things for me to process. How can these executives, in good conscience, take something so sacred to one group of people and turn it into a pair of shoes? I don't know. And you know what? I don't want to know.

Youth Marketing

Am I in middle school again? While reading this I feel as though I'm in middle school, a time when when all the cool kids had the latest pair of "Air Jordans" and other brands like Fila and LA Gear were is in style. Unfortunately for me my mom would not buy me Jordans so I was that kid who came to school in puma's which as I look back, were pretty hip I just didn't know it at the time.
My point is that even though styles have changed it's still "cool" to be the kid with the hottest pair of sneakers and fresh clothes. For me however, I have grown into a woman that wears what I want when I want no matter what the latest trend is. I'm comfortable enough with myself that I don't need the most expensive clothes and shoes. Besides, you can get those pair of BCBG shoes at Marshall's for half the price you would pay in the actual store.

All to be COOL

Full-time "hunters" of street style and youth culture…..

“Frat Boys” and “Bud Girls”!

Is this what our country has come to? We have to pay for a brand to make us cool, but the brand pays “hunters” to find what is cool on the streets that we live on and in the culture we create!

Anheuser-Busch pays collage students to promote their product but that is not all they are promoting. In a demographic that already drinks to excess Anheuser-Busch is capitalizing on the abuse of their product.

Is this what our country has come to?!

MARKETING TO SHEEP

Of course the Youth Market Saves The Day. The Youth Market has always saved the day. It is the easiest market to persuade. These kids still in the process of education, untainted by real world experience and have the disposable funds to spend on such needs as "coolness". Try to sell "cool" to a thirty-eight year old with a three kids, a dog and a mortgage.

The companies marketing to the youth aren't marketing to the trendsetters. They've targeted the sheep. The sheep follow the trend setters. The sheep are the majority. Those in control of the majority control the market. Putting "under-covers" in the "in-crowd" for market research is unnecessary. Sheep are Sheep. Tell the sheep what's cool. Or when in doubt, hire Snoop Dog to do it.

Article on Common Knowledge

Although this article is an easy read and makes various points, it seems to me that it is common knowledge. Even people who don't understand design, marketing, and advertising can see that targeting teenagers is very successful. It is the perfect age to per sway an individual on what is cool, and how they should look, act, and what they should wear. I believe (because I've been a teenager) that people are more concerned about what people think of them, and how they fit in, at this point in their life more so than any other time. Not only that, when your a teenager you get the chance to earn and spend money for the first time, and teens love to spend money. Most teens spend most, if not all, their money as soon as they can, they're not thinking about saving for the future. The clothing market takes advantage of this. Both middle and high school kids follow trends and define themselves by the way they dress, and act. This is heavily influenced by big brands that sell the image of cool incorporated with their products. Trends come and go, and the market takes advantage of this by selling every possible aspect of any given trend. People will buy anything they think is cool, as long as the advertising is not lame, as a result of trying to be cool. I experienced many trends in my teenage years starting with the grunge phase (around 1994-influenced by the death of Kurt Cobain) to the skater phase, the punk's, the come -back of swing and ska, goth, hipster, emo, gangsta the list goes on. The market takes advantage of kids trying to be cool, and they sell the crap out of the image. For example, when the whole goth look got popular they made a store "Hot Topic" that sells black clothes, chains, and awful music. Since then you can always count on seeing a lot of anti-social, misunderstood teens dressed in black with eye makeup wandering the malls. Doesn't this act go against what they stand for? Well I guess it's important to look cool while your acting like you hate the world. Anyway, I'm going of on a tangent. Back to the reading. So this article pretty much states the obvious. Whether its targeting a particular gender, race, or lifestyle, large corporations will continue to research teenage influences and sell the image back to them at a high price. Bottom line; if a company can sell the idea of their product being cool to the desired demographic, then teens will buy the product until something cooler happens. Corporations have been doing it for years and will continue. I'm actually surprised that it took people till the early 90's to figure this out.

Marketing to our youth

Its funny to what degree youth can run a brand, I mean you expect things that are specially made (or targeted to) a certian age group. However. major fashion icons, and shoe giants? Thank God for the push of popularity huh? !

Whats funny about this article is in the era Addidas exploded- I directly bought into it. I always sit in class thinking pffft brand loyalyty, I cant think of one brand I AM loyal to, right now its about cost and availibility for me, but in that year (i think it was around 1992) never having owned one, or having any interest in sports: I made my mother go out and buy a near $200.00 Addidas coat. Now this is one of the only times I had decided to try to be one of the in crowd.. but none the less the realization of this article made me laugh a little.

Culture creates the market

Even though the majority of the article talks about the effect young people have on the marketplace, I think the gist of it is that culture creates the market. If there is a movement taking place out there that is big enough to be noticed, there are going to be companies that will go after it. SImple enough, right? Sure, but the problem is many companies don't always realize this. They come up with a formula for how to sell their product and when it works they stick with that same formula until 5,10, however many years later, they start floundering and wonder why. They fail to see that what use to work doesn't anymore. One thing that has continued to hold true is that the companies most intune with their target market have experienced success. It is not about being ahead of the curve and trying to predict what people are going to want, it's about being in harmony with the curve and giving people what they are wanting now.

The other problem with this is when companies create a brand image for themselves and then try to change it to stay with the times. This transition often doesn't happen easily and their brand equity may restrict them from changing people's perceptions. If you tell people you're one thing and then say oh wait we're something else, you will lose their trust. This is why sub-brands are so important these days. The most sucessful companies create a solid foundation for their primary brand by characterizing themselves in ways such as being distinctive, creative or inventive. These qualities would be valued no matter what the current trends are, therefore their brand becomes timeless as long as they continue to live up to these qualities. And because these designations are non-descript enough, they can market products and sub-brands in a more current and fashionable way without changing their identity and misleading their audience.

Of course all of this is easier said than done, as the main issue is knowing your market, which is every changing. This is why marketers are so important, but it is just as important for the designers to be intune as well. We are the ones creating the pieces that the make their way to the consumer. If we don't understand the target we are aiming for, how are we suppose to hit it.

Is this a joke?

I swear, I almost threw up when I read this article.
I have probably permanently lost brain cells after this.
Half the time I spent reading the phrase "well, no shit!" was running through my head. Hello, McFly? Maybe this was all stuff I was familiar with because of my sociology background, the process of how trends are adopted and how new things filter through culture, but seriously, folks. No shit the kids are going to buy what they see their favorite singer wearing on tv. No shit my younger brother with buy some shoes cos Nelly told him to.
I guess I found this whole reading kind of elementary, maybe because I'm the person all these companies are targeting.
But I have an idea: maybe instead of saturating these kids to the point of frenzy with ads and shiny things, focus your attention on the other people. In high school, I was the kid you cut the labels off my clothes, refused to shop at Abercrombie, and wouldn't be caught dead wearing a designer label (besides my Dior perfume, you'd have to pry that from my cold, dead hands). If these companies took time to find ways to make their brand appealing and unique, they could grab a whole other demographic. Let the kids flood the malls for the shirt Xtina wore on Letterman last night, but give me something, too.

I don't know, this made my brain hurt too much.

The Youth Market Saves the Day!

This article stated that the teen culture is the “cool” culture. Is this really the case? Maybe it was in the 1990’s but is it really the “cool” age now?
I don’t think it is.

It seems to me that up until around age 30 everyone wants to be older. Once people are older they want to be in there 20’s. So shouldn’t the target be the 20 some-things (maybe it is now)? And not the “teen” age group? After all don’t teens just want to be like college kids?
Forever 21 seems to know all this just by calling themselves Forever 21. There name seems to imply that they are cool. Teens and housewife’s love this store because the branding makes them feel either older or younger. Yes they are a “hip” store but I think their big pull is their name.

Also, it seems that the “teen” generation is different now then it was, even just from when I was a kid/teen. The way things are marketed to pre-teens has changed. In my own experience with my sister, who is just now a pre-teen, there are so many more ads targeted at her then there ever where with my generation. And in turn the need for her and her friends to fit in and be popular is much grater. The things that have come up in her life as a pre-teen and even before she was a pre-teen, I don’t think where an issue with me and my friends until we where actually in our teen years.
Even just the TV shows and commercials that are geared for her are much different. They are much less “fun/innocent” and more about being cool and fitting in and how “brands” can make you cool.

This all seems to be good for the industry, but I don’t think it is good for our overall way of life.

the youth market saves the day (sounds like the name of an emo band)

I thought that this was in interesting article. I was a little surpirsed to learn just how influential teenagers and young people are to the creation of brands. One thing I thought was pretty funny was how they describe kids as always asking what is cool, and going into stores together and asking each other if something is cool or lame (I am guilty of this. or at least asking if whatever I am holding is real ugly or not). Its weird to think that 15 year olds are dictating what's trendy for people who are in their 20's, when the high schoolers are trying to look like the 20-somethings in the first place. I think its interesting that the need to be aware and up to date on whats hip and cool has driven the job market so much, at least in the examples given in the article, almost to the point of replacing the suit-wearing young professionals with skateboard riding hipsters. But if being cool and trendy is a driving force in todays hiring process, I am in trouble. oh well.

Chumbawamba is right.

This article made me pretty uncomfortable. From the "bro-ing" technique to the rebranding of a country, to the legal stalkers of youth culture, this strategy for finding and promoting trends is a little scarey. Do the designers really say, "Hey BRO, check out thses shoes." Are they trying to talk on someone's level? Because the article presented it in a way that seems incredibly superficial. I do not support the idea of a country being "rebranded" by a politician-imagine if we trusted George Bush to define our cultural brand. yuck. However, Britain was pretty old-fashioned before Blair brought his semi-youthful (compared to the queen) point of view. Searching for trends sounds like a pretty fun job, but calling them hunters and stalkers- I wasn't given a very positive impression.

Youth Market Saves the Day

Step1
Target Youth
Step2
Sell Rich Whiteness to poor Black audience.
Step3
Sell Black culture back to white audience.
Step4
Profit


Don't you think that with the emergence of customization and DIY that brands will eventually lose this avenue and have to start targeting specific demographic sub groups.

Cooler than You

What is cool? How does one define it. If brand marketing is geared towards the youth population, how hard could it be? Sure, if you have an entire design firm filled with employees over the age of 40, relating to middle and high school ages could be a definate challenge. However, for most middle and high school kids, their knowledge if what is cool is slim to non-existent. They just do what the majority of other kids are doing. Rarely, at that age do you have the one individual that completely designates his or her own style. More noticeably, middle and high school, in terms of fashion and "coolness" is a game of copycat. Who can get the newest, most expensive product first. And most times, that person who "gets it first" is copying someone else...a celebrity maybe?

Now I do realize kids are getting smarter everyday, and that if coolness is forced upon them it might be rejected. So, a level of competence and understanding is needed. Also, a how much is too much attitued needs to be applied. The kids need to believe that they are making these choices, not following a marketing strategy.

How much is too much?

Brands seem to be kind of a big deal. They are everywhere we are. You really can’t look at much of anything without seeing a brand. There are millions of jobs that are created for branding. And after all aren’t we all in graphic design because of brands? Without brands there would not be much of a need for graphic designers. So as much as we may not like brands we all need them.
The question is though how much branding is too much? Is there an invisible line that should not be crossed? Maybe it will be up to all of us to decide where this line is? Or maybe there should never be a line in the branding world maybe the crazier it is the better it is for the brand. Or maybe it just depends on what the brand is as to what will promote it the most.
Sometimes it seems like the less branding there is the better it works for the brand. This was seen with the way the Body Shop got known. They seemed to get so popular not because of their advertising but because of their political philosophy about women, the environment and ethical business. I was surprised at how seemingly surprised the Body Shop was at how big they have gotten.
I wonder if the Body Shop would have grown so large so quickly if they had poured their efforts into branding?