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?

Our newest branded world

Just like all art advertising goes through shifts, waves and trends. Yet it seems to surprise us somehow that consumers stop reacting to the same familiar comforting ad campaign and crave to try something new... we ARE creatures of habit, but also I would like to think that was are intelligent enough to question why we pay the extra $2 for a certain brand. There are very few brands i have remained loyal to myself especially on a students budget.
I think the evolution is a good thing- some competition is healthy and good for the consumer as well, but keeping in mind that brands have a responsibility (just like every other designer or artist) to keep environmentally conscious. In my opinion THIS should be the new campaign, companies taking a stance for the better. Using environmentally friendly materials, and even promoting and patting themselves on the back for their deeds (because you know it will be announced anyway.) Maybe this will/could spark competitors to do the same, and finally the billboard crowded and littered streets could be reduced and recycled.

NewBrandedWorld

Anyone else throw up in their mouth a little after reading this? It seems that advertising will necessarily hit a sort of event horizon eventually. When half the economy is spent promoting the other half of the economy, whats left? Since corporations are trying to insinuate themselves into every part of peoples lives, is it possible that a sort of new corporate feudalism could be in the cards? With conglomerates able to offer a variety of services, this seems plausible, even more so when one considers the talk of 'privatization' of federal and local services.
Also, apparently the '00s are the new '80s. Everyones in to brands, health trends are running amok, video games are the new hotness and even cocaine is making a resurgence. WTF people. Seriously.
Considering this is our last year, it seems like a career in an ad agency will be a career spent being a shameless huckster and pest to society.
My theory is that you can't kill the brand, simply because the human mind is set up to make associations. Some kind of branding will always come through to make value associations with the indentity of a company, and people will readily accept those associations if there is even a bit of truth to them.

Design Culture?

I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around designers being a culture. I guess it depends on an individuals defenition of culture. I view design more as a movement that never stops evolving. People change and therefore design changes along side it. To argue further, I don't necessarily think that design forms the culture or movement. I think that design, in a way, conforms to the general consumer public. People have to be able to relate to design, otherwise, it won't affect or pursuade them. So in my mind, design rides along side our culture, but does not create one.

Designers Create Culture?

Do designers create culture? I am not sure that is as big of an issue as Katherine McCoy makes it out to be. I do agree that there is a problem with the way things are often pushed on the consumer but I am not sure that this is necessarily a design issue.

McCoy asked the question “how do we create culturally meaningful experiences from scratch and on demand?” I am not sure that we can. The way I understand culture is that it is the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behavior of a particular group of people that come from a particular place, class, or time to which the people belong. It seems that it would generally be beneficial for designers to work with this and not against it, and I think it happens more often that we perhaps know.

Nearly everything we design is targeted to someone and before we even start to design the item, we first research the people we will be targeting. We try to understand the targeted audience to the best of our ability so that we can design for what is important to them. Even huge corporations and brands do this. An example of this is the current KFC campaign, they pose the question of having a real family dinner on a weeknight they then say: “bring back dinner”. KFC is playing directly in to our set of cultural standards of wanting a home cooked dinner every night. This idea of a family dinner is part of our culture, and rather then fighting it, (as KFC is not a home cooked meal) KFC is playing right into it. Generally speaking brands are using our culture to their advantage. If they did not they would not be as successful. I do thing that design changes culture (and maybe more in the underdeveloped countries) but without culture it would be much harder to do meaningful design.

Reality Branding?

Why do i keep thinking the same things about these articles?
While moving toward "reality branding" is a noble effort, how is a major overhaul in the design world going to take effect without the participation of everyone? The rose colored glasses need to come off. No one is willing to sacrifice their cushy job for an experiment in truthful branding. While a pro-bono piece for a good cause and a little recognition maybe not produce a paycheck, further down the line it may warrant that big raise. For this whole paradigm shift in design to take place, there needs to be a concensus among the design community.
In one part the article the says something along the lines of: "if the product sucks and isn't serious, don't advertise it like it is". True. And ideally, that's what would happen. But who the hell is going to buy the less serious, silly, truthful product over the one that looks flashy and important. Unfortunately, people do judge books by their covers. And if your cover sucks, don't expect it to make it to the best seller list.

/my $.02
//can i get change back?

Reality Branding?

I really like the way this article started. I thought that the following sentence in particular was a good point to start with. “Instead of pretending that design is the be-all and end-all of existence, let’s look at it from the outside, be honest about its place in the world, its power, and its potential, and see what we can do with it.” She went on to say how it does not make sense to expect design to fulfill your social, political, spiritual, and cultural ambitions. And of the importance of ones life outside of design. I think that as students we are expected to not have a life outside of design, that we should live, breath, and think design. I think as students it is very important for us to immerse ourselves in all things design but there has to be a balance. The closer I get to graduation the more and more relevant this is becoming to me. I think that in order to do good design and design that is relevant in the world outside of design you have to be plugged in to what is going on in the world and the culture around you.

Once she really got talking about “reality branding” she started to sound a little idealistic. Sure the points she was bringing up were valid, but the solution she was talking about seems idealistic and unrealistic in the world today. So many of the products and companies that designers design for are things that people really do not need. It doesn’t matter if you market it as a lifestyle or as a political stance, even if the company really does live up to it, you can’t change the fact that people don’t need that particular product.
I am sure that if you could find a company that would allow you to persuade them to live up to what they say they do and then if you could convince them to allow you to market them in “reality branding” they would see an increase in their income. But really I think that, as we all saw in project 2, there are very few if any companies that really practice responsible business practices.

I would like to think that we could all change the world.
But hopefully there are other ways of doing it.

Reality Branding 101

"What influence do we really have?!" At this point in the article I begin getting alittle steamed... Well I think; we communicate, spread messages inform and on some level educate. We promote for a cause, and help better individuals lives through the art or designwork itself and perhaps even (if we are lucky) through boosting sales. This may not be on such an entirely grand level, but some work is personal and other work is to pay the bills.

But (as i keep reading) I suppose it was justified to contrast the idea of reality branding.. Strategy indeed, reflecting the real values of real goods. No attempt to revolutionize the business. Hasn't this been what is in our minds now? Well atleast mine.

The reading seems a little obvious- but generally needs to be stated in a world of change your life banding approaches.

Cyclical advertising

This reading really didn't uncover many hidden truths, there were no epiphanies which occured paragraph after paragraph. However it did force me to concentrate on the sad truths of many advertising campaigns.

That is: the fact that these corporation giants have began to think of themselves as "cultural philosophers, spiritual guides and political leaders. Attributing to the rise of a culture obsessed with material goods. A culture which better, faster, smarter, more beautiful becomes a way of life. Obsessed with competition-each person stepping on the one under them to get ahead. In a way it seems really natural that brands which needed to break through the clutter result into emotional and lifesytle branding leaps. Like all history advertising is working its way in a circle. By this I mean, I see the future of advertising backtracking to the very same promotion of quality and virtue of product; as a means to be different from this lifestyle sale approach which will disguist consumers more and more.

logo-a-gogo

The Economist's assertion that brands are something developed by the modern world in order to perpetuate a corporate image is not exactly true. Graphic chops, marks, and, lest we forget actual brands have been used for more than a millenium. Some artisan's marks have been identified and recognized across the years through archeology. Lets not forget, that even the Messopotamians would look for a good pot based on the artisan's mark. Over the years this mark has evolved to encompass more than simple craftsmanship. Now brands attempt to encompass whole emotions, experiences, and dreams. This transition probably came about innocuously enough. Someone back a few centuries realized that showing happy people with their product will make people believe on some level that they are buying a little of that happiness.

However, I will have to call shennanigans on the statement that municipal branding isn't successful:
SPQR
Anyone with book lerninz will recognize this as one of, if not THE longest lasting brand of the western world. It is still in use today. The architecural style as well backed up the strength of this brand whenever it situated itself in a new market.

Naomi Klein is right, she does seem cynical. She isn't wrong, but she isn't right. By now, the average consumer is aware of many of the hypocracies perpetuated by most branded companies. That brands try to sell MORE than their product is unfortunate, but a result of free market capitalism. It ain't a good system, but it's the best we've got so far.

First Be True To The Brand

In THE CASE FOR BRANDS the editors of the Economist's wrote, "Quite simply, branding doesn't deliver. We don't find community at Starbucks, a global commons through Cisco or transcendence through Nike, just as we don't find political engagement through Benetton."

It worries me that individuals would turn to these brands for such important needs in the first place. Are you really looking for community at Starbucks or do you just want a good cup of coffee? Do your Nike shoes really fill some social void? Are they suppose to? Why can't a cup of coffee and a cozy couch be a metaphor for "community and a third place"? It works for me. These brands aren't claiming to solve world problems. Their branding is an effort to evoke a positive feeling that can be universally associated with their product. Like a toothpaste that not only whitens your teeth but gives you a reason to smile again.

On that note: branding should relate to the product. Like sex in advertising, it's ineffective if it's just borrowed interest. I have a hard time connecting Benetton clothes to politics. It seems like a weak analogy. It is the advertisers responsibility to stay TRUE TO THE BRAND. Why are their clothes and these heavy politcal issues connected?

Benetton is an example of a brand that has gone too far. Before one can be true to the consumer they have to be true to the brand.

Why brands have evolved

So you all know, brands have evolved to more than just a quality statement. Quality is an entry point into the consumer mind-set these days. There aren't too many catagories where parody doesn't play a part. MP3 players is maybe one of the few exceptions. Can it be assumed that when we pay a good amount of money for a product or service, it's going to be worth every penny? Shouldn't it now more than ever?

A brand is a promise. Quality is just part of that promise.

Do brands make you feel differently at times. You bet. Think about when you go to a nice party. You put on your fancy going-out clothes. You look good. You feel good. Why? Because of the clothes on your back. What are those? Labels which represent brands. We all interact with brands on a daily basis. Why do you use the soap you use? Toothpaste? What cereals do you prefer? Toilet paper. What kind of gas do you buy? They are all your personal preferences. Maybe they are learned preferences or they are automatic preferences because your mom used them.

You all are going to have the privilege to own some brands in your lifetime. Make sure when you get that opportunity, you seize it to your best ability.

For now, concentrate on making your own brand. Think about it. You are all going to enter the work-place and establish your brand in that environment in the first 30-60 days you are there. I hope you establish yourselves in the manner that turns heads for the right reasons.

The Case for Brands

This reading really started me thinking, I don’t know if I just never really thought about how brands started or if I had and just never made the connection between the start of small brands and the large corporate brands. Brands started as a way to provide a guarantee of reliability and quality to the consumer. Brands used to make the owners more accountable for the quality of their products.

Today I think that brands are more about trying to sell a way of life or a life style to the consumer, rather then reliability and quality. If a brand can make people think that their products are better because of the lifestyle they represent then they can charge more for the product even if it is not better. This new “inner truth” that companies are now using to connect their companies with the consumers seems like a way to almost make the company less accountable for their practices.
I believe that if they can paint a picture for the consumer about what the underling foundation of the brand is then they can cover up or hide what their actual business practices are.

Naomi Klein criticized Benetton for the way they promote their brand by using “truth instead of advertising”. Even if they are not practicing what they preach at least they are making people aware of issues that they may not otherwise be aware of. If this sells the product then all the better, because then they will continue to use this way of advertising and continue to bring social issues to light for many people.

manifesto

This artical made some very good arguments and some that i didnt agree with also. I thought that there were alot of great quotes and inspiring phrases. I really enjoyed the part where it talked about how design is the culture. that the world we live in is made up with design and thats all we know. 'it is no exaggeration to say that designers are engaged in nothing less than the manufacturing of contemporary reality. Today we live and breath design. We have absorbed design so deeply into ourselves that we no longer recognize the myr iad ways in which it prompts, cajoles, disturbs and excites us its natural and the way things are,"

Alice in Designland

I am not sure if its naivety or self-aggrandizement, but it seems that many graphic designers these days have an inflated sense of importance and influence. While these are not uncommon characteristics for most humans, many designers seem to think they live in a different world than everyone else. The truth is the consumer holds all the power and the market merely gives them what they want. As such, the advertising is simply a reflection of the current social climate it is infiltrating. If advertising is deceptive and lacking morality and integrity, it's because they are not important qualities within that society. While it would be ideal to work with only the most righteous and respectable organizations, I think it is irrational to suggest that it should be a responsibility of the designer to do so. The reality is, we don't live in a fairy tale world. You can find issues with even the most charitable and sympathetic businesses. It is just the landscape in which we live. The most we can hope for is to better educate the public and improve as a society. This is an action as an informed citizen though, not as a designer. If we can use our knowledge and skills to do so, all the better.

And in my imaginary world of perfection...

While it's commendable for designers to make a statement about how they are going to continue to work, and how their work should be applied, it's not always the practical solution. You're going to, at some point, have to do the shit you don't want to do to keep food on the table and the lights on. While it sucks that as a designer you are expected to put just as much effort into a worthless brochure for NAMBLA as you are the annual fundraising invitation for the Red Cross, sometimes you just gotta do it. And, in theory, in that perfect world with marshmallow clouds and Kool-Aid rivers, all design would benefit, everything would be done for the greater good. The label for my fish food would make both the fish and me happy. But you know what, it's not about making me happy. It's about getting me to buy Fish Food A over Fish Food B, based on which picture I think is prettier.
It's a noble effort, but not always an option.

First Things First

It would be nice if designers had complete control over the moral decisions of a client, if a bad company had to do good things in order to have a good design agency. However, I don't know of many firms who hold this power. Unfortunately, it seems that in the design or advertising field, we work for them. The clients do not work for us. We only have the power to turn down their work or keep it. If a good designer turns their work down through a moral decision, there's one standing right behind them ready and eager to take it, so does the company learn a lesson? Probably not. The article asks what would happen if the best designers withdraw from advertising in Times Square, a center of commercialization fighting for attention in an overwhelming mess of flashiness. I think there are plenty of good designers who would take their places, seeing how only 22 people originally signed the manifesto. There are plenty of ad agencies who would be thrilled to have Walmart as a client. And Walmart has the power to drop you whenever they see a better deal. Walmart does not promote good design in their products, but for some reason, some of the best agencies would fight for their business.

For businesses who stand by what they believe in, I support them for turning down companies they do not support. I would love to avoid working in the corporate world of design. However, I don't know what type of clients to expect at this point.

First Things First

It would be nice if designers had complete control over the moral decisions of a client, if a bad company had to do good things in order to have a good design agency. However, I don't know of many firms who hold this power. Unfortunately, it seems that in the design or advertising field, we work for them. The clients do not work for us. We only have the power to turn down their work or keep it. If a good designer turns their work down through a moral decision, there's one standing right behind them ready and eager to take it, so does the company learn a lesson? Probably not. The article asks what would happen if the best designers withdraw from advertising in Times Square, a center of commercialization fighting for attention in an overwhelming mess of flashiness. I think there are plenty of good designers who would take their places, seeing how only 22 people originally signed the manifesto. There are plenty of ad agencies who would be thrilled to have Walmart as a client. And Walmart has the power to drop you whenever they see a better deal. Walmart does not promote good design in their products, but for some reason, some of the best agencies would fight for their business.

For businesses who stand by what they believe in, I support them for turning down companies they do not support. I would love to avoid working in the corporate world of design. However, I don't know what type of clients to expect at this point.

shocked, SHOCKED!, I tell you!

OH NOES!!!1!!!!!11 D3z*N i5 @ <@p*ta|*5t t00|!

Everyone take a deep breath.
Design, when taken as a field, has always been used to comodify and sell things. Always. The contemporary practice of design has always had its roots there. Old print shops used design to make their books more attractive. Broadsheets were used to bring in crowds to various events. Anyone who has an idealized view of design that is a pure and advertising-less needs to crack a text book. It isn't unfair to say that advertising spawned the proliferation of the modern design field. They have always been linked.

The real issue that the First Things Fist manifesto is attempting to adress is the lack of moral compass in the advertising world. While the title suggests a return to some ideal, the real aim is to establish a new trend in advertising in which personal morality and advocacy are the new viable career paths. The main aguement is that designers should be more beholden to their own morality than to market trends. This is an admirable aim, but the present market situation leaves most of this civic-minded design to be completed by individuals with extra drive to work for these causes outside their job, or by smaller private firms who aren't subject to shareholders and gains.

TELL THE TRUTH

I think Milton Glaser said it best in his essay, "Ten Things I Have Learned"
Part of AIGA Talk in London
November 22, 2001

"A butcher was opening his market one morning and as he did a rabbit popped his head through the door. The butcher was surprised when the rabbit inquired ‘Got any cabbage?’ The butcher said ‘This is a meat market – we sell meat, not vegetables.’ The rabbit hopped off. The next day the butcher is opening the shop and sure enough the rabbit pops his head round and says ‘You got any cabbage?’ The butcher now irritated says ‘Listen you little rodent I told you yesterday we sell meat, we do not sell vegetables and the next time you come here I am going to grab you by the throat and nail those floppy ears to the floor.’ The rabbit disappeared hastily and nothing happened for a week. Then one morning the rabbit popped his head around the corner and said ‘Got any nails?’ The butcher said ‘No.’ The rabbit said ‘Ok. Got any cabbage?'"

"The rabbit joke is relevant because it occurred to me that looking for a cabbage in a butcher’s shop might be like looking for ethics in the design field. It may not be the most obvious place to find either. It’s interesting to observe that in the new AIGA’s code of ethics there is a significant amount of useful information about appropriate behaviour towards clients and other designers, but not a word about a designer’s relationship to the public. We expect a butcher to sell us eatable meat and that he doesn’t misrepresent his wares. I remember reading that during the Stalin years in Russia that everything labelled veal was actually chicken. I can’t imagine what everything labelled chicken was. We can accept certain kinds of misrepresentation, such as fudging about the amount of fat in his hamburger but once a butcher knowingly sells us spoiled meat we go elsewhere. As a designer, do we have less responsibility to our public than a butcher? Everyone interested in licensing our field might note that the reason licensing has been invented is to protect the public not designers or clients. ‘Do no harm’ is an admonition to doctors concerning their relationship to their patients, not to their fellow practitioners or the drug companies. If we were licensed, telling the truth might become more central to what we do."

It's a good message, "TELL THE TRUTH"

Social Responsible Advertising

I would like to think that most companies that donate to charities are doing it for the right reason and not to make more money for themselves. I realize though, in this day and age many companies are greedy and use charity work as a tool to better increase their own profits. On one hand I'm not against the "win-win" scenario. It is true that if a company is donating money to a good cause or charity and they profit somewhat from this transaction, both sides win. On the other hand, I don't think that it is necessary to promote and advertise these donations with the sole purpose of getting press and making more money because of it. If a large company brings in a butt-load of money each year, they should donate to charities. If your making multi-millions each year whats a few million for a charity going to hurt. This should be a ethical decision that makes the company feel like they are really making a change, not building their image.
Large companies should be more modest about their donations; people would respect a company more to somehow find out later that they have been involved with charities, rather than having that fact shoved down their throat. I'm not saying that letting the public know of a companies charitable actions is always wrong, It depends how and why they are doing it. One major factor is that hopefully these companies are being honest about what percent ect. they are actually donating and not exaggerating or capping off the amount. It is also key that these companies stand behind what they support. For example, a company such as Reebok should not support world wide human rights if they are paying Indonesian workers twenty-five cents an hour to make their shoes.
One thing that does bother me is the fact that people search to find flaws in companies that are sincerely trying to do good. It seems to me that it's probably fairly hard to have every single corporate decision or aspect be 100 percent morally correct. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but come on lets be realistic. I just feel that if a company is really trying to do the right thing and help a worthy cause or donate their money to one, they should not get bad press for a minor screw-up. There are probably thousands of greedy companies that make a ton of money and don't donate a dime to anything. People should be proud of companies that donate to charities, and if these companies generate more profits because of it, good for them, they should then donate more next year.

socially responsible advertising

I thought that this reading was very interesting and it made me think alot about all the scams that go on in the world. Everything is a scam, people are always trying to sell something by lying about it. i didnt realize all the businesses that advertised things just for business. Businesses are not involved with the cause it's about how it looks whatever draws people in even if you are being hypocritical. I think that it was interesting about McDonnell's and avon etc... being passion branders, that actually believe in the cause they are supporting, i think that is amazing. i just cant believe how the world develops and becomes more and more hypocritical.

Monetary Intimidation

I disagree with the statement that money equals power. I think that money envokes intimidation in many cases, therefore giving a false sense of power. Its one thing to have money and put it to good use and its quite another to gather money from a "good brand name" and spit out a shitty product. We associate cerctain standards with different brands, but it makes you wonder if we are covering ourselves with a security blanket by trusting these brands just by there name. Yeah sure, some brands have a good history, but depreciation does occur. So before dropping a lot of money, remain just a little skeptical. Do some research before committing.

Socially Responsible Advertising

I feel that it is the economic pressure of today's intense competition through capitalization and globalization that has ruined the good nature of many of the companies mentioned. Ben and Jerry's was started as a small company that I feel really did care about their community, but also about their employees who they still treat very well. I'm not sure what the exact ratio was, but when Ben and Jerry's first started, the lowest employee would always make 1/7th of the top executive's salary. If the company made more money, so would the employees, but most importantly the employees knew that the top executives were not raking in all of the profits while others are left behind at minimum wage under a successfully advancing company. This is an example of the company's idealism-i'm sure it's impossible to uphold today seeing how much they have grown. But it proves their responsible start.

The article talks about how McDonald's care for children. I agree that they do great things. But what about the products themselves contributing to child (and adult) obesity? At least they finally serve apples in kids meals. I greatly respect socially responsible companies. Starbucks buying beans for 2 cents a pound and selling them for 9 is disgusting. Annual donations of $100,000 does not make up for the poverty someone would live in because they're paid 2 cents a pound for their hard work. Why not support fair trade??? A knowledgable consumer could understand the difference this would make to the Guatemalan suppliers. They could easily market that. Their customers already pay $4 for a cup of coffee. Why not at least give the option?

There are rare examples of corporations with a "conscience," but I choose to support those have them. Patagonia for example. Their clothing is expensive, but you know where it comes from, and the people who made it were treated fairly. You know that the pair of pants you are wearing did not slap a sweatshop worker across the face for not making enough in their 7 am to 11 pm shift without restroom breaks (like Walmart). Luckily there is a large enough market of people who care- (and have enough money-which is an unfortunate aspect) to keep Patagonia afloat.

It's really too bad when a company is exposed for their hypocrisies. Their entire reputation can be ruined so easily when other large corporations who don't care at all about the environment or humanity stay strong because they offer a good bargain. Large companies have so much power to make a difference, but most are only concerned with money. So support the ones who have concerns for the "greater good."

socially responsible advertising

i thought it was pretty interesting that many of the companies discused in this writing support charities and/or causes that are directly related to the negative press and issues the company has recieved. one of the most obvious examples of this is denny's diversity campaign following a lawsuite about the company discriminating against african-american clientele. its funny that these companies don't support issues like this until they absolutely have to, or in the case of denny's, to save their reputation. what at first seems to be a genuine outreach to the community is really just another way to make money. on one hand, i suppose a good deed is still a good deed regardless of the motives behind it, but then on the other hand, it does prove that people will do anything for money. its frustrating when companies like levi's and reebok still use sweatshops and child labor, and to the public they present themselves as supporting causes like amnesty international. its incredibly hypocritical and its frustrating to see that businesses in the united states will stoop to this level to increase profits. they'd do anything for a buck. they can justify exploiting people who have no power to get themselves out of a near slave-like situation because at the end of the year they've made 4% higher profits than the year before. they amount the donate to charities and good causes is tiny in relation to the amount of money the business makes in profit.

Sometimes No Ads Are Best...?

After reading the Socially Responsible Advertising packet I began to wonder. About what you ask? Well... if a company, like Phillip Morris, a.k.a. "the Tobacco Kingpin," gets no positive effect from their attempts to give back to the community, then why keep doing so? Whoa, did I just say that? Yes I did. Everything I have learned thus far is about making money in a round about way. These companies are losing money and in return may be damaging their image just by mentioning its name. Sometimes no ads are best I believe.

Think about it, Starbucks, Ben & Jerry's and Chevron were all mentioned in this article. How many ads of any of these companies do you see a day. I like television and I don't think I have seen a commercial for any of these in a while. I'm pretty sure that there is still a Starbucks on every corner. If these companies are so exploitative as some people make them out to be then I believe that they should all together stop trying to improve their image. Like Lewis Williams stated, "...it's a little too late." You can still get your eggs over greasy at a Denny's near you. Well you don't have to agree; just think about it. Peace.

Heck yes it's about the money!

I agree that it's all about the money. A lot of the brands mentioned and profiled by the article were strong, but then fell. Their feigned interest in these causes and very limited connection (diner food means diversity? shenanigans!) weaken the injured brand even further, and diminishes their credibility. I don't become loyal to a brand for their support of social causes or even because of their connection to certain organizations. I buy GM products because they are reliable, that's what I've grown up with, not because I believe in their strong connection to fight against breast cancer. I drink Starbucks coffee, not because I'm supporting their bean-farming whatever-ness, but because I like their coffee. I agree with the quote in the Denny's paragraph that a lot of this "social awareness" is damage control. Your company screwed up big time, made an ass of themselves, let's ride the coattails of something that's totally hot right now. I like the begining where it said the trend for companies in the 90's was to attach itself to animal and wildlife-related causes. Now it's health related. What will it be in ten years? Environment? Equality? Anything that's going to get these giant corporations money is the cause to support.

Thoughts on Cause Marketing

Money equals power and power equals the opportunity to speak and be heard. Therefore it doesn't really bother me when companies or people with both money and power use their lime light to stand behind something they believe in. However, it saddens me to know that many use their super powers for evil.

I disagree with Ann Kaplan, research director of Giving USA who says, "Companies by nature are not philanthropic. They are giving to advance their business interests." It is unfair to put a dark cloud over the entire idea of "cause marketing" I feel that there some "do-gooders" out there with the right intentions. Maybe there should be tighter restrictions and regulations enforced? But I feel that it is important not to heavily criticize the effort. These campaigns are itsy bitsy baby steps in the right direction. The 1.2 million dollars that Ben and Jerry donated in '99 could've just as easily been used to buy a new company yacht.

Socially Responsible Advertising

I think that we as designers should have a certain amount of responsibility for the things we choose to create and put into the world. I was disappointed but not at all surprised when I was finished reading Socially Responsible Advertising. I never thought that these or other companies were exactly honest or that they were doing as much good as they often claim to do but I guess I did not think they were doing things quite as irresponsibly as they generally seem to be doing.

I do not think that there is anything wrong with cause marketing in-fact I think cause marketing could be a good thing, but only if the company is representing the cause accurately. I have no problem with a company using a cause to increase their profit and popularity if they are really doing what they say they are doing with the money.
I do have a problem though when a company does not practice what they preach. An example of this is the way Reebok has been portraying themselves, they claim to be a promoter of human rights in the Third World but they are in-fact taking advantage of the same people they claim to be helping. Reebok’s overseas factories have terrible working conditions and they use child labor. When a company like Reebok wants to portray themselves as doing so much good I believe that they should be held accountable for the way they operate their own factories. It seems obvious to me that Rebook is using this “cause” marketing to gain more sales and that they don’t really care about their cause if they did the first place they would have started would have been in their own company.

Another problem with cause marketing is that many huge companies only donate a very small part of their profits to the cause they are advocating. Or they put a cap on the amount of money they will give to the cause and when they reach this cap they don’t tell the public and they will continue to promote themselves as though they are still donating.

I think there needs to be some way of monitoring and holding companies accountable to the public and the causes they represent. If cause marketing is done right it could be a very good thing and could make a huge difference in the world. But it seems to me that to often cause marketing is not really doing very much good except to make the brand more popular and could be damaging the cause more then they are helping.

Listen

The one thing I'd like to challenge all of us to do better is listen. Listen to your parents. Listen to your friends. Listen to your classmates. Listen to your instructors. Listen to people when you are out. Listen to music. Listen to your instincts. If you do this on a daily basis, you will no doubt be able to listen to your clients. That is a very powerful tool to develop.

I'm done for now. I'm going to listen to the second half of the KU hoops game.

How to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul

I really enjoyed this section because for me it really put things into perspective. When the text talks about the designer really getting involved or absorbing the culture around them makes sense in terms of designing for the now. It's great to look at past design styles for inspiration but it's really important to understand whats happening today.
It's also of great importance to really connect and understand what your client is wanting without it being about you. If your design concept is all about you and want you as a designer wants then there really no need for client presense. I think that it's okay to be very passionate about your design approach but at the same time you have to be receptive to input. As we discuss in class frequently, at some point a designers has to step back and remove themselves from the process inorder to bring forward a better solution.

I agree (with Springer) that the Super Bowl commercials were lame. I sat through hours of football to watch them and was not impressed. I do not like football. I stare absent mindedly at the tv while the game is being played until a commercial comes on and grabs my attention. I "watch" the game for three reasons: to eat lots of food, have some good laughs, and gain some cultural awareness. This year, I only accomplished the first. I do feel that it is incredibly important to be aware of your culture in order to communicate ideas to it, and it is constantly changing and progressing. A designer has to be active and involved in the "outside world," and it's a fun way to research.

Meeting many professionals in the design community in my past few years at school, I have met many designers with quick, observant senses of humor, and if they don't have one, they appreciate others who do. They understand each other's jokes because they are culturally aware. It is also important to be passionate about the topics you're interested in and believe in, and be excited by them. If you're excited about something, you should have enough interest to stand up for it. The article discusses the competitive pitch. If an agency is proud of their work and they stand behind it, they should be able to prove they are right for the job by showing the client examples of their past work and how they solve problems. Giving away ideas for free is not fair to the agency, and is not a good partnership.

I also found the sidenote on album cover art very interesting. "It confirms album cover design as an enduring and substantial factor in design, and yet music graphics have not been treated by educators and the design establishment, with the same respect or degree of seriousness normally reserved for other forms of design." The only music graphic I have seen in an art history class was the day-glo cover for one of the sex pistols albums and possibly music posters from Hatch Show Print? Album art brings culture and design together in a direct way. Stefan Sagmeister's cd case for the Rolling Stones is an amazing piece. I once purchased a cd for its album art alone, and I went through a phase of nothing but Grateful Dead t-shirts in the 6th grade. I have always appreciated music graphics. They visualize interests from experiences that are not tangible, and people are able to express their interests through wearing them, or hanging them on the wall. My goal is to acquire enough prestige in the graphic design field to be invited to design a respectable and famous band's album cover.

how to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul

(quick note, i have every intention of writing this with out hitting the 'shift' key much, so my humblest appologies to those who have an aversion to sentences starting without capitals. i'll get you a present later or something, i promise).

the first thing that really caught my attention was the idea that graphic designers are actually better when they have interests outside design. to be our most creative, we need to expose ourselves to influences and experiences outside our little world of design (or, in the case of kcai, outside of the little world of the j & g). not only does this make you more fun at social outings with non-designers (it's always a bit of a shock to me when i realize that my dinner pal would rather talk about the food on the menu instead of discuss its ugly layout), but it allows you to relate to clients better. your work can have more depth because you are better able to understand where the client is coming from. it helps you avoid being 'self-centered and having a narrow outlook.'
another issue i found interesting (and especially relevant to myself) was how strongly being good at communicating your ideas verbally is stressed. i have a difficult time clearly verbalizing my ideas, and while i think i've gotten better about it, i still need a lot of work. its obvious to me that being able to talk about what you're doing is just as important as being able to actually do it, and it is very frustrating to me when i struggle to explain why i'm doing what i'm doing. it makes sense in my head, why can't that be enough? because no one else is in my head, and they can't see it before its done like i can, and no one likes surprises like that. i thought for a long time that if my work was strong it would speak for itself, but if art school has taught me anything, its that being a good talker is priceless. you can talk people into liking a piece, but you can't just show someone a piece they don't like and think they'll change their mind.
and, last but not least, my favorite idea in this chapter: '...we find outselves presenting only ideas we can comfortably mock-up using our scanner and photoshop. in other words, we avoid ideas that can't be easily executed by digital means: designers must not let technological capabilities define their thinking.' i love that this is brought up because i am guilty of it. i've slowly realized that i'm not doing work the way i want to be, or in a way where i really enjoy the process because many times its easier and faster to just do it on the computer. i miss working by hand. i miss drawing. and that seems wrong to me, i'm a designer and i'm at an art school. how the hell can i miss drawing?! but i don't do it because we have tight deadlines and i feel like if i took the time to illustrate something i would not get it done on time, which is unacceptable. its quite the predicament. but i am glad i have realized i am doing this, and i plan on making an effort to stop it. so thanks, 'how to be a graphic designer without losing your soul', for reminding me not be a slave to my laptop. you rock.

Speaking of Cultural Awareness...

I believe that we all have been cheated as designers/advertisers. Why you ask? Did anyone see Superbowl XLI? Well...sorry let me apologize. The game...whoa! AMAZING! Where we all got cheated was with the lame, lackluster, boring commercials. I'm sorry if you're a K-Fed fan but I think that his 12 minutes of fame might actually reach 15. Sad to believe but true.

How can we as designers be satisfied with these commercials? I know that there are other sources of influence besides television commercials but this is the Superbowl. This is our biggest day of the year to showcase what we've got. The world is watching. We are watching, waiting to be inspired. I was waiting to see the next Budweiser lizard commercial, not literally. Those lizards were so creative and inspiring. Here three dumb looking frogs "ribbiting" a brand name. Interesting. This is what I need. Sorry Sheryl Crow, I don't need or care to know about your fake colored hair. What...don't remember that commercial. My point exactly.

I can't say that all the commercials were bad but definitely just not what I am used to. Hopefully as all of us enter the design world we will remember these Superbowl commercials as a whole and vow to do better. The commercials will fade like those mud spots on that wannabe dalmatian...phony. I guess sometimes we need inspiration on not what to do so in those regards...Thanks.

Cultural awareness and communication

One interesting point from How to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul is to take interest in everything that goes on around you. By doing so, one will increase their appreciation for design and advertising techniques along with realizing what campaigns work and which ones don't, and why. Cultural awareness is vital for the modern designer. The more a designer scans, scrutinizes and absorbs the world around them, the better their knowledge of design will be. It seems to me that by making mental notes of good design in the community, you can better influence techniques and ideas in your own design, making it more successful.

I also thought that the reading gave some good tips concerning presenting your ideas, your work and yourself as a designer. As far as personal traits, good communication, moral principles and personal integrity seem to be high up on the list. Communication is a major factor when working with potential clients. The way designers present ideas is as important as the ideas themselves. The story of the designer presenting the ideas for the radiator in the middle of a block of ice proves this to be true. Because he was able to vividly describe his ideas and intentions with confidence, the client approved the idea without any visuals. The reading suggests that being a good listener and not over promoting yourself and your work can prove to be successful. It also suggests that when referring to your work, remove the personal from the equation. I felt that there where many good points in this reading that are key for designers to know and practice.

How to be a Graphic Designer...

One of the first things I found striking about the article was the authors paragraph about his trip to Hong Kong and how out of politeness, he responded that he would love to work there. He recognized the fact that his work was effective in one country because he was attuned to the aspects of that culture, not just language and history, but subtleties that only come from being a member of the society, not just an outsider. I can identify with this on some level because of the maniacal research i put in to damn near all my projects. Whether I know about my subject or not, I can always know more. I don’t want to get any fact wrong, misinterpret one piece of empirical data, or misunderstand a key point. Even when you’re designing for a group you know, you could always dig a little further, find one more level to communicate on.
“Designers sometimes imagine that the world revolves around graphic design, and when you are working fourteen-hour days it’s hard to remember that it doesn’t.” I don’t really recall feeling that way too often. There’s a lot I’m aware of design-wise in the world around me, but I’m not consumed by it. I know damn well there are far more important things in the world than a well-designed wine rack. The fact that my TV remote is poorly laid out and things are where they “should be” is not a fact I’m only aware of because I work with design. I’m aware of it because it hinders me from using my remote. The only time “normies” recognize design is when it’s not working right, and that might be what I do. Maybe I have this great ability to shut the design part of my brain off when I’m trying to focus on something else. I’m not saying it’s good or bad, Im just saying bad design doesn’t keep me up at night.
In later parts of the reading, the author talks about equal input being given by both client and designer. Well, duh. To me this seems like a no-brainer. It’s not a client-designer situation if there’s not equal input, it’s a commissioned work. I guess the opposite of a situation where the client and designer both has a say would be where a designer throws together something, tries to sell it to the client while refusing to make changes. That just seems stupid to me. Of course you’re going to give your clients opinion weight, they are the ones keeping your lights turned on.
As far as the “morality” of a designer, why is there no system in place like doctors have? Maybe some kind of Hippocratic Oath for designers. Instead of “never deliberately do harm to a patient” it’s “never deliberately use someone else’s work for your own benefit without written permission.” Most designers seem to follow this unwritten code of ethics without even noticing, but if you’re not, odds are you should probably be looking for other career options. I don’t think morality is something that should have to questioned in any forum of art. Have enough respect for the people around you in your “community” not to steal their work or their employment opportunities.
As a final note on this reading, I love the line at the end “You don’t have to be able to draw to be a great typographer”. The more artists and designers I hear prefacing statements with “you don’t have to know how to draw to...” the better. Drawing is overrated, I only say that because I suck at it.

And as far as "critical thinking"... I swear I've read this before. It was very relevant the first time I read for Anthropology, because of the material you're dealing with and what you are trying to gain from that material. Not to say that this isn't relevant to better understand a client or a creative director, but the context that I'm familiar with the steps of critical thinking are very from art or design related.

"For the ambitious designer this is fatal"

In reading the first article in "How to be a Graphic Designer Without Losing Your Soul" the section on Communication is what caught my attention. At first I was offended when the article compared the sensitivity of a graphic designer to a that of a safe-cracker. Since a safe-cracker is using his "tactile sensitivity" and wit to crack a safe, rob a bank, break the law and decieve the people. I think this is a horribly negative and piss poor analogy to the field of graphic design. I like to think of a graphic designer as a problem solver using his/her creative expertise to provide a valuable service to their client. I was even further concerned with the article as I read on, "The designer who shows only signs of self-absorbtion and narrowness of focus isn't going to inspire his or her client... They are guilty of the worst crime a graphic designer can commit: they are revealing themselves to be self-centered and to have a narrow outlook. For the ambitious designer this is fatal." Self absorbtion and single-mindedness is poor social etiquette and is fatal for anyone. One of the first things taught in sales training is that the person who has spoken the majority of the conversation walks away feeling the best about it. One shouldn't be worried about "revealing" the fact that they are completely self absorbed they shouldn't feel that way in the first place! IT"S NOT ABOUT YOU! The first sentence of the paragraph is, "How does this help me become a better designer and get my work accepted?" When it really should be asking how can I better meet the needs of and provide a better service for my clients? A designer's genuine interest in the success of their client is what I think solidifies those business relationships. Robert H. Ennis provides the best piece of advice in his "Critical Thinking" article, "Care about the dignity and worth of every person". Not because it will get you ahead in the design world but because it's the begining of a recipe for good moral character. Character is the attribute that seperates us from the ruthless, stealing "safe-crackers" of the world and promotes a genuine concern for the well-being of others.

"People helping people, it's a beautiful thing." - Vince Vaughn, Wedding Crashers.

Response to: How to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul.

There were many points in this reading that I found interesting and very relevant to where I am now in my current academic and professional career. There are a few points that I found of particular relevance to me.
The first was when they were talking about “cultural awareness”. Cultural awareness of what the trends are in our society and also in other societies is something that I find very hard to keep up on, in-fact I have only recently discovered how valuable this is to my education and my ability to create good work. I have always looked through design books to find inspiration but now I also look for inspiration in other places such as magazines, store fronts and my everyday surroundings.
There was another point that was brought up that I have recently discovered about myself. The point of how technology makes things so much easier for the designer, but how not every idea can be executed on the computer. This is something that I have been realizing over the last year. It is always easier to go straight to the computer when I begin a project but I am learning that it is rarely the best way to go about things. I have been finding that although it may take me longer in the beginning of a project that it may in fact save me time in the long run and will almost always make the end result better if I do not start on the computer. Another point along the same lines is the point about “less you means more you”. I think this relates to cultural awareness, the more aware you are, the more influences your work will have, thus having in a way, less of you.

As for the second reading Critical Thinking it seemed very confusing and kind of contradictory to How to be a graphic designer, without losing your soul. In Critical Thinking Mr. Ennis seems to think that critical thinking is something that can be learned by a set of rules. Where as in the other reading critical thinking was thought of as something you have to have within yourself but also has to be learned through research and keeping up with the current styles.

Learninz n such

The article on critical thinking, a brief bit of metacognition on a certain type of thought process lost me a bit. I have trouble following bullets when they stack up with complex lead-ins. However, one thing that grated me was when the author stated that "The ideal critical thinker is disposed to try to "get it right"..." This may be a great sentiment, but it becomes hardly practical when dealing with moral issues where there is no clear "right." I'd argue that critical thinking is most useful with these situatuions, where skeptical analysis aids in the formulation of a position. However, a person's moral background shapes the parameters one defines as 'right'. Just sayin.

On the second bit of reading...It is true that album design gets short shift from many people. Album design also inspired me before I even understood the field of graphic design. I thought this article offered a fairly cogent arguement for sticking to one's beliefs and ideals, without becoming too preachy, and offering positive outcomes to doing so. It also spoke very well of the need for designers to be able to eloquently speak about their work. I think that in our class particularly we rely too much on our classmates established understanding of our work, work ethic, style and approach, as well as project descriptions when presenting. It would benefit us all to start presenting our work more with a great deal more depth. This might seem a bit redundant for some, but it would help prepare us to present work much more effectively in the future.

Additionally, Mooninites > Boston.
That is all.

Critical Thinking on Critical Thinking

Critical thinking has long been a great interest of mine, as I am sure it is for most designers. Analytical thinking goes into everything we do. Our designs are made with a purpose in mind, as such, every decision that goes into that design should be purposeful as well. Therefore the cognitive skills of designers is often more important than their artistic skills. In this text, Mr. Ennis' ideas about what makes an ideal critical thinker are very interesting and insightful, but I have some issues with his statements. The first is the notion that critical thinking can simply be broken down into a list and judged purely on wether it meets his stated criteria. I think the act of critical thinking is largely a subconscious one. The things we are analyzing are often consciously examined, but many of the actions Ennis highlights as dispositions and abilities, I believe come through instinctively. That is not to say that these qualities are inherent, though. I believe that good critical thinking is learned and developed. As we grow and mature so does our capacity for 'solving' complex problems. We begin to discover what issues are relevant and important and which ones might lead us astray. When the answers we come up with end up being right only part of the time or only lead to more complications, we refine our mode of thinking. This is an ongoing process, one that is fueled by observation and experience. While Ennis does a very good job of pointing out many of the abilities and sensitivities a good critical thinker possesses, I think he undermines the whole process by presenting it so systematically without a deeper explanation preceding it. All the dispositions and abilities are made equal in his description, when it may be possible that our minds give more weight and validity to some aspects over others. Take his statement "Care to present a position honestly and clearly" Does it mean if we are not able to present our position as clearly as we see it in our own mind, that our beliefs are any less true? Yes it may affect our overall ability as a critical thinker if we can not present our ideas clearly and recieve suitable feedback, but is this aspect as important as say, identifying the focus. I understand that Ennis' main goal in this text is to help teach others to be better critical thinkers by making aware often overlooked characteristics, of which I think he is successful, but I believe he fails to display the true nature and complexity that is involved.

The other issue I had was that he was referring to an 'ideal' critical thinker. To use such a word, would assume that there is a conception of a perfect critical thinker. What basis does he have to suppose this? Ideal under what circumstances? Is it based on the current socioeconomic culture in which we currently live? He talks about caring about the dignity and worth of 'every' person, which is obviously not possible in every situation. Does that mean he understands that the 'ideal' is unachievable? I think for each person it is going to be different based on their experiences, they will become the type of critical thinker they need to become, to say there is an ideal seems irrational.

A Critical Disposition

in response toRobert H. Ennis' , A Super Streamlined Conception of Critical Thinking

Critical Thinking has often been dubbed reflective skepticism. A defintition which makes logical sense by the "dispositions" presented in the reading... acording to Professor Ennis, a critical thinker
1. Cares that his or her beliefs are true.
2. Seeks alternativea and other explanations, plans and resources.
3. This information is justified and backed up by his or her sources.
4. he or she is well informed on the topic of discussion.
5. Considers seriously points of view other than their own.

Critical thinking is more difficult, more troublesome than garden variety brainstorming or thinking. The author however does not detail what benifits a person can receive from using this method, but rather it is simply an explaination or how to guide in the critical thinking, which in the reading threw me for a loop. I Suppose it is seflish to look for a benifit in the reading, (or perhaps i was expecting it to be a point of view rather than an explanation) but i am inclined to not be a very organized person and was looking for a little encouragement. the Conception of Critical Thinking presents a very technically derived point of view, none the less helpful, but I dont believe it is obvious in the reading that the someone may be (for example) a better debate person by applying this method.


The idea of debate in relation to the reading i found interesting- What I mean is the idea of debate aplying to the 5th disposition: "Considers seriously points of view other than their own". In my experience the person who has put the arguement or debate on the table usually believes strongly and stubbornly in the topic he are she is addressing. This only makes logical sense- for what is a debate without a strong belief? However, I do believe and feel that one should care that his or her beliefs are true when engaging in discussion. Ennis himself had stated that the critical thinker does indeed "Care that their beliefs are true." I have witnessed and been in several discussions where one opposing side or point of veiw cares cheifly for the sake of debating- of argueing to prove perhaps a superior intellect, or perhaps they just wish to argue? However, this one statement is the thing i deem most essential when engaging in coversation or debate. I believe every participant should seek to arrive at a truthful conclusion. When truth of the matter is kept the crucial reason for intellectual debate. I believe that we would indeed have much more enlightening and beneficial conversations.

No more Gap commercials

I really feel like what Amanda wrote seemed to be very valid. DVR has really taken the world by storm...its a great thing, but I don't see commercials anymore, which for us in the design/advertising field can be a downfall. For example this past winter you might have noticed that the Gap, famous for there hot commercial spots choose to not make any for the holiday season and instead create a mini booklet that was placed in major magazines. Their reasoning behind this was that people aren't watching television as much now...or fast forwarding through the commercials, so they were going to make a print piece to replace the expensive commercials. I personally feel as though this idea backfired on the Gap. You would be shocked how many people would come in and ask why they haven't been seeing any new commercials, ones they really loved in the past, some even asking if the Gap was slowing going out of business. I always reasured they...it's the Gap, we'll be around for a long time. So that seems to be a fact that people are still watching commercials. I do like the idea of sneaking advertising into venues you wouldn't think to have them be seen in. As Americans we are so inriched in pop culture so it seems like a very smart idea to incorporate them into other areas. It's all about getting your logo out there!

ad space sale

The invention of the DVR also know as TIVO dealt a blow to traditional commercial advertisting. Marketing directors since then have tried to make up what has been lost in commercial viewing with slick product placement, including seemless integration into the content of TV shows, film, magazines, and celebrity sponsorship. (Which I think we have talked about on a couple of days in visad class).

Last night CBS news ran a really cool piece at like 2AM about a company called Marathon Ventures. The largest growing virtual/digital brand integration strategist in the country. They have people screen every type of entertainment media produced. They look for ideal places for their high paying clients products to be part of scenes, storylines, and general sets/props. Once the client chooses what the best spot, the product is magically superimposed by computer, either where nothing was before, or rebranding something existing in the shot, for instance a characters t-shirt. Furthermore, that product placement is usually only guaranteed for one showing, each re-run could have a different box of cereal at the breakfast table for instance. And movie theatres in different locales could play the same film with different products that were chosen for their demographics, and the same goes for different releases of dvds in rental stores and for purchase in stores.

So my question is, that if they can do this so easily for products why don't they strategically place pink ribbons during breast cancer awareness month, or have characters attend a charity function, or put a rainbow bumper sticker on the back of a passing car. Catch my drift. We need to sneak some visual advocates into the product placement companies, or make non-profit marketing directories aware of this strategy so that they can beg for their causes air-time. I don't know. Just a thought.

word cool

I remember using a word "cool" a lot in hight school. Cool was cool. And it's insane how clothing companies were projecting on teens and on people in general. I think couple years back we were easily impressed with celebrities and billionaires having fun and doing something extreme. And of coarse that would raise up the attention of the people and they will say that he/she is cool, I want to go to that store. Like for example the playboy brand projects sexuality and i think the playboy bunny is cool, here we go I said it. So, i think we are all influenced.
I liked the insight about Tommy Hilfiger. Because it's just shows straight out how he lauched his business. I think it was smart to supply Snoop Dog with tennis shoes including probably many other celebrities, spoil them some more. But if it gets the promotion and branding out, you are on a right track. Just like hiring people to spread out the word, everythig is a strategy.

Indie is in

In the article "Alt. Everything" pg. 77 they mention how the cool kids abandon large brand named clothing; such as tommy hilfiger and nautica. They claim to only wear non-brand clothing from thrift stores or clothes past on from other generations in their family, yet now stores like Urban Outfitters and Abercrombie and Fitch market clothes that look just the same as the thrift clothes. Companies have caught on to that crowd and are making clothing to that certain target market. Smart! Now its cool to look like you don't care, with holes in your jeans-normally costing about 4 dollars at a thrift store but sold for 80 dollars at Urban Outfitters. So I predict that the next phase these "cool" kids go through will be to go back to the big name brand designers, just like it was in eighth grade for me.

Project 3 Revision

Democrats Opening Assault On Bush Security Policies

Ok, so I picked a different article to work with for project three. This one is about a set of proposals that the leading Democrats in congress recently unveiled titled “Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring Our Leadership in the World.” It is an attack on the administrations current security policies both at home and overseas. The proposal includes, increasing financing for Special Operations forces, increasing financing for economic development in troubled areas like the Middle East and South Asia, demand for more military equipment, additional port security, and stronger efforts to stop nuclear weapons development. The proposal also calls for the United States to achieve “energy independence” by 2020 by increasing production of alternative fuels. This is the part I would like to focus on for this project.

Nick @ Nite: NOW & THEN

Legg! Totatally agree with what you are saying. This takes me right back to the mid to late eighties. I would spend the night at my Grandma Dorothy's house from time to time. It was such a luxury since she lived in town and had cable...something a country boy like myself dreamed of. Me and Grandma would always watch Nick At Nite..watching shows such as Bewitched, Father Knows Best, i think the Brady Bunch was the only thing presented in color! At this time, I felt like these shows were so old, completely from a different age and time, but the whole time thinking they were the best shows ever. Now lets fast forward to the current Nick At Nite viewings. Full House, Roseanne, The Cosby Show...oh my god, is everyone thing what I am thinking?! Shows of our childhood are now being thought of in a way I thought of the Mary Tyler Moore Show! In the words of Michelle Tanner "no way dude!", or was it Stephanie...i'll have to get back to you on that one. I feel this really relates to "cool" in all senses of it. In current fashion treands, you are seeing things projected back to fashions of the late 70's to the 80's, of course with a new spin on it. Why wouldn't this be the same with media, design even. Just as todays youth is loving the way Darlene Conner is rebelious, Kimmy Gibbler is annoying, and Rudy Huxtable (sp?) is stealing cookies from the cookie jar, I was thinking that Marcia Brady had the prettiest hair, are Morky and Mindy real people?, and singing the Laverne & Shirley theme song were all very cool. Cool is what you make it. Cool? COOL!

youth marketing

I had a alight hard time understanding this reading, but what I got out of it is that companies started to be more focused on teens and hit them with consumerism and lables. I mean it is a strategy, it sux but teens are crazy. They want what's cool and trendy. I was in Moscow this past summer and was taking a walk with my girlfriend. and we saw two girls their age was probably 13, and exCUse me our mouth just dropped. Lena said to me do you remmember us when we were that age? I said yeah and we did not look like that. Fashion changed so much. I mean if me and Lena showed up to class looking like Paris Hilton, we would of gotten an apsence for the day and loads of embarrasment. Today teens follow this rutine that media, fashion and advertisement projects.

Marketing of COOL

After reading this article, it occured to me that the most productive way of marketing towards the youth culture would be through our entertainment; this being musical bands, artists, celebrities. Back in the '60s and'70s, the youth culture looked up to the same people, especially musicians. Back then they were wearing second hand clothing and just jamming under the stars, just as the article states. Now days, the youth culture is looking towards the same people; Britany Spears, Jessica Simpson, and Good Charlotte. In order to get the youth culture to buy their products, they must get to those people and thus the youth culture will follow. It makes a lot sense when I think back to grade school and high school now. Curt Cobain (Nirvana) and Hole were the big thing in my day, so grunge was in. Of course then, I must wear chucks and flannel shirts too, then everyone will see that I listen to that sort of music. I wish my little sister would listen to me when I tell her that by listening to Britney Spears and wearing her clothes and makeup like her, that she is being sucked into a false world. She is becoming something other than herself. Kids need to get out and stop watching tv all the time, go play in a sandbox or ride a bike. That was a little off the subject. sorry.

Israeli Pullout

The March 29 Issue of the New York Times includes on its cover an article outlining the recent Israeli election results. The article announces the victory for the Kadima Party, a newly formed political force that claims to be moderate. Kadima was formed shortly before Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suffered a major stroke in January 2006, which was given over to Ehud Olmert as acting Prime Minister. The Party’s main platform rests on the promise to give up the West Bank and other “occupied territories” to the Palestinian Authority as an act of ‘Disengagement’. I chose this issue because I do not think Israel should give any more land away. I do not think the Kadima party is an accurate representation of the larger population (only 52% of citizens cast ballots in the recent elections). There is a saying among Israelis: “No More Concrete Land For Paper Promises.” The PA has repeatedly proven itself to be an organization that supports terrorism and is unwilling to take action against its own people when the International Laws of Peace are broken. It must also be mentioned that after the Gaza pullout, the PA has not maintained their end of the bargain, which was a promise to keep Gaza’s Egyptian border safe and to not tolerate ANY acts of violence from within the Gaza borders into Israel. Neither of these promises have been upheld. Last Tuesday, the first Katyucsha rocket was fired into Israel from Gaza, signaling an escalation of warfare. Up until recently, the attacks have been limited to Qassam rockets (which have a shorter range and are therefore less of a threat, but are by no means ‘safe’ for the people of Israel) are being fired at Israeli citizens. With the recent Palestinian elections resulting in a victory for Hamas (a terrorist organization) the peace plan is already in a state of uncertainty, and for Olmert to suggest that he will continue with the peace plan established under former leader Arafat is almost laughable. It is a critical time in the history of Israel as a nation; decisions will be made that will permanently affect the citizens and their way of life. Hopefully, Ehud Olmert and his party are prepared for the challenge and its consequences.

Trade truce with China in the Senate

The article I choose out of the New York Times was about a trade truce with China within the Senate. There was a bill being proposed within the Senate that would threaten steep tariffs on Chinese imports if Chinese leaders refuse to let their currency, the Yuan, raise in value against the dollar. The tariff of 27.5 % would be on all exported goods coming from China. The Senate has reserved the right to put this to a vote in Sept. but is hoping that the matter will be dropped. The Senate Finance Committee is pushing a separate bill that would focus more attention on currency policies but stop short of threatening tariffs on imported goods.

China is becoming more and more a super power in the world in the regards of consumption and production. America has tried to reduce the trade deficit by trying to boost U.S. exports to China. Exports have increased significantly in the past few years, but not nearly as much as the flood of Chinese imports to the U.S. We export cotton, we import clothing, We export hides, we bring in shoes. We export scrap metal. We bring back machinery. We're exporting waste paper; we bring back cardboard boxes with products inside them. We have failed to make trade more of a two-way street, rather it's a trash shoot into the American consumer’s backyard. There is also talk that China is trying to engage in currency manipulation, going hand and hand with China buying up America's ever growing debt, which could then make the dollar crash and burn and the super power America as we know it could float away in the wind like a plastic bag caught in a updraft.

US hubris

The article I choose to right on is in the Business Day section of the New York Times. It’s title is “At G.M’s Helm Or Going Under.” The article Starts by explaining the hardship that G.M has fallen under. It’s unit sales are at their lowest point since 1992, when G.M’s now president stepped in and turned the company around, and its market share has been in steady decline and does not look to be turning around anytime in the future without intervention. The question is, what will the intervention be? Some are placing the blame on the President of G.M, Mr. Wagoner. Saying that he should have taken bigger risks and paid more attention to the lure of environmental friendly automobiles before the competition capitalized on the need. They also criticize his downfall in giving in to the Auto Workers Union and actually paying its employees to not come to work. They are shelling out money to workers that are not working. Toyota has made a choice to not have a Workers Union. They work under the strategy of, you come to work and take care of us and we’ll take care of you. But G.M is paying so much for it’s workers that it’s prices must stay high enough to support the labor. Toyota has shops that are flexible and can make many models of their cars, G.M only has 8 out of 23 shops that are flexible.
The issue now is, will a new president really save the company or is it just too late? The closing of G.M will effect more than we all know. It seems that its just one subsidiary of a company but when we think of how many small companies are supported by the work they receive from G.M and how many people are then employed by G.M adversely, it adds up quickly. It will effect us all. The government bailed out Chevrolet years ago when they neared bankruptcy, will they do it again?
They political issue at hand is where we as an American company got so overconfident and lost sight of quality and pride. We then allowed foreign cars into the US and they saw a need and filled it. Should we have never allowed foreign cars in or should we have stepped up to the plate and taken a closer look at the quality of our work. Should we also have never allowed for a labor union for auto workers, allowing for cost of cars to stay low? There are many issues at hand and I believe that it all boils down to the hubris of our culture. Instead of investing in environmental cars to save G.M, Mr.Wagoner bought Hummer. We are Americans who want bigger and stronger and this is what in turn, has made us weak.

-Amy Hubbard

German Quiz - Not Natasha - Oops

Article from The New York Times; A quiz for would-be citizens tests Germans' attitudes

Should people have to take a test to be able to become a legal German citizen? Some of these quizzes entail 300 question quiz about the history of Germany and must speak fluent German. They are trying to preserve the German culture that they have left and keep out immigrants. I believe that anyone willing to become a German citizen should be fluent in German and know the history of the culture. Maybe they only allow a number of people into the country to keep an equal amount of native born Germans and incoming potential Germans.

PROJECT THREE

The topic of choice is large. The ongoing crisis and decline of General Motors financial situation is facing an all time low market share since the Great Depression. Facing a $10.6 billion loss in 2005, its biggest since 1992, General Motors is laying off hundreds of White-Collar employees from 30 various G.M. factories across the country. And thats only the beginning.

Good riddance. The GM automaker is the largest in the world with a family of vehicles from well known American brands including Chevrolet, Pontiac, HUMMER, GMC, Cadillac and many more. GM delivers quality, reliability and durability in every car, truck, or SUV they build...they also delivery pointlessly huge vehicles that consume twice, even three times the amount of gasoline than other responsible foreign compacts. These vehicles are dangerous environmentally as well as for both drivers on the road and contain frivolous power levels that consumer-grade vehicles would never need.

Be gone with all irresponsible vehicles.

Project THREE Overview

"After Hard Lessons, a New Game Plan for Huricane Seasons"

I found this particular article in the National portion of the New York Times. Its main focus was the plans for the upcoming hurricane season. They are needing a better action plan for when these storms hit the coastal areas in the south. I found it interesting that the ideas are mostly focused around reloacting large amounts of people. The main ones that are being looked at very closely are the ones that are living in mobile homes. They are the ones that would be forced to leave even if a tropical storm was in affect. It was mentioned that they do not want this project to overshadow the recovery efforts that are still in play from last years devastating Hurricane Katrina, showing that is still the overall main focus, but then aslo realizing that something like that can happen again and thusly being more prepared for the season.

Germans say 6 companies sold nuclear parts to Iran Network

I picked an article called " Germans Say 6 Companies Sold Nuclear Parts to Iran Network". I found this article to be intriguing because Germany is trying to find out who exported or shipped 3.6 million worth of nuclear equipment. Germany has this restrictions about shiping equipment to other countries, and to Iran it's borbidden. So somehow they think that may be there is a Russian middlemen, because since the equipment cannot come to Iran but can come to any other country like Russia, (which is close to Iran) so they assumed that may be nuclear parts went there and then to Iran. This article reminds me of Nicholas Cage movie about guns. Now i am curious who actually shipped the equipment. Russian authorities say that they don't know anything about this. Iran says that they are innocent also. NOT FUN......

project 3

Article: Negotiations on Tobacco Payment

In 1998, there was a $246 Billion Master Settlement Agreement, which ended lawsuits against the largest tobacco companies over the health care costs of smoking. The agreement included major restrictions on cigarette marketing. The big companies now say that they are entitled to a reduction of $1.2 billion of the $6.5 billion they are scheduled to pay as the next installment of the settlement, which is due on April 17.

It’s not really this particular article that gets under my skin, but smoking and tobacco companies in general. I can’t wait until smoking is banned in all public areas. If someone wants to kill themselves then make them do it inside their own homes and away from the millions of people who are trying to be healthy.

Pro3: Gun Bill

The article that I am chosing to cover is about a gun bill that is in front of Congress. The article is about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's, of New York City, fight against the bill. The bill in question would prohibit the release of the records from the the national gun-trace database. The records could only be used in a "bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution" and not in civil suites. Bloomberg is looking to use the trace records to weed out the irresponsible gun dealers who do not follow the A.T.F.'s guidlines on the selling of firearms. According to Bloomberg 300 of the 540 homicides in NYC occured with illegal firearms. This bill would make it harder for civil lawsuites to be brought against "rogue" dealers and therefore even more difficult to hold them accountable for their carelessness. This is a rising concern, as more and more people are dying. It is still far to easy for criminals to find a gun even if they go through a dealer or a pawn shop where the owners are just seeing the money in their pockets and not the blood on the streets. It is not really much different from the tobacco industry now being somewhat held accountable for their actions as firearms ultimately put more peoples lives into danger.

German Quiz

Article from The New York Times; A quiz for would-be citizens tests Germans' attitudes

Should people have to take a test to be able to become a legal German citizen? Some of these quizzes entail 300 question quiz about the history of Germany and must speak fluent German. They are trying to preserve the German culture that they have left and keep out immigrants. I believe that anyone willing to become a German citizen should be fluent in German and know the history of the culture. Maybe they only allow a number of people into the country to keep an equal amount of native born Germans and incoming potential Germans.

Project 3 topic

The essay I read was in the New York Times Special Edition Museum section. It essentially explored issues surrounding the current politics overcoming the museum world where I intend to make a career. It’s also interesting to me as a producer of cultural property.

Who owns art? Art being defined as cultural (intellectual) property, otherwise known as patrimony. Is it private citizens, which were perhaps descendents of the artist? Does the National Government of the artist, or of the source country (where the art was found)? Or is it the museum that owns the work that they (their patrons) paid for, or entrusted to their care by donors? Which brings about a second question. Whose responsibility is it to protect cultural property for future generations? While just that is the mission of many museums, the destruction of art is the mission of some governments. China is attempting to extinguish the Tibetan culture by systematically destroying their import religious art. Whose job is it to protect Iraqi cultural property in their current embattled state?

In today’s context specifically, the art in question is that which may have been obtained illegally by today’s standards. Art that is not attributed to any particular artist in most cases, and often many generations old if not ancient. This includes work found during unapproved archeological excavations, and art taken from peoples during colonial occupation. Art was always collected by imperial powers as a display of wealth and power. And art is proving to be at the heart of the complex political struggle for superiority today.

It is of utmost importance that the international laws regarding the ownership of cultural property be solidified so property can be dispersed accordingly, and the party responsible for its care and protection clearly named. Only then can the museum world and governments concentrate on diminishing the black market for such property, which is not only jeopardizing the preservation of the property for the future, but the ability for professionals to learned about the cultural contexts within which the art was created.

The Culture Bank is one institution attempting to reconcile issues of art ownership and protection. Started by Todd Vincent Crosby, a Peace Corps Member serving in Mali, the Culture Bank is a museum that lies within the borders of the community from which the art came from. Member of the village can lend their precious family artifacts to the museum for safe keeping in exchange for small monetary loans. Additional loans can be taken out over time as long as the art remains in the museum. They can choose to reclaim the piece if they repay any loans in full. The art essentially becomes collateral for loans much needed to proper in the 3rd world.

corporate sauce

Woe is me! Tom’s of Maine has sold out to the man. I am going to have to find a new brand of toothpaste – what a hassle. Now every time I brush my teeth, I will be facing an ethical dilemma. I love my toothpaste, but do I love it enough to stroke the man’s pocket with my hard earned cash, or should I begin a search for a socially responsible toothpaste and stick it to the Colgate corporate giant. I even went to the Tom’s of Maine website to check out just how they justified their decision – they claim their small company cannot supply the growing demand for natural products, but I think Tom and his wife are getting older and wanted to lubricate their pockets with a little extra golfing cash. Does that make me jaded and cynical? Perhaps. But Tom should know better.

Sorry for the frivolous blog – but I had to vent my frustration.

GoGuerilla

While I was in Philadelphia my new found awareness of all the ads I'm seeing, and wanting to know where they come from led me to this company. Visit www.goguerilla.com to visit the GoGuerilla site or their niche counterpart GoCards. EVERYTHING that I picked up in Philly these people had made into incognito, or conversely loud and obnoxious advertising space. The GoCards are mounted in stores and restaurants on neat little racks for you to take for free... but during my stay I encountered GoToothpicks in restaurants, GoGlasses (advertising cheap airline tickets), GoCoaters, napkins, matches in bars, GoModels on the street, and probably more that I couldn't absorb. It's particularly interesting to read the sections where they try to explain what guerilla media is, and why it would help your business. There is also a casestudy section.
Check it out.

become a dezigner over night!

check out this link that relates to our discussion about design training:

http://www.thedesignerslife.com/lh/mef2/