Bitch.

Is it possible to be a socially and politically active designer without having a good sense of the things you believe in and/or stand for?

This is an article I came across about a year ago that addresses the issue of women's roles in society. It is an article that I keep in my journal when I need justification on being an opinionated, passionate, and for the most part, strong female. Some might see it as a cliche feminist article, but to me, it is a pivotal reminder of the power women can hold in a professional world. Whether we are writers, musicians, or in our case, designers, we shouldn't shy away from expressing our thoughts and/or opinions for the fear of what others might think. When we have confidence in ourselves, the possibility to bring about change becomes endless.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody."

Who are you calling a bitch?

No logo Reading: No Space/Alt. Everything

I guess this is what its going to come down to, our culture is bought up by corporations and sold back to us. It's nice to be aware of this fact, yet our generation still runs with it as normality, they know bands sell out to pepsi, and buy up the newest fashion, jeans, soundtrack to the newest indie flick put out by fox searchlight, i know, because I'm one of those individuals. I do feel quite in the dark about the newest age of cool, i feel it must be riding the wave of the last couple of big movies, or newest artists to hit itunes. I remember when bands hit the radio that never would of dreamed making it otherwise, all because of a little film called Garden State. The movies soundtrack launched a wave of cool, the quasi-indie bands because staples everywhere you went, you heard them, saw them on SNL and in Time. I think in some ways, it is good for our culture it make it out to the outskirts and back again, in a way the youth get exposed to so much, and its their decision to accept it, but wouldn't you rather find it yourself?

Guerilla Girls in KC!

For anyone interested, the original founding members of the guerilla girls will be giving a lecture at YWCA Black Box Theater on Sunday, March 30th at 2:00 P.M. Tickets are $5.

If you can't afford the tickets, they will also be doing a free workshop the day before their lecture [on saturday, march 29th] at UMKC. Call to reserve a spot, only 20 or 30 are available: 816.235.1638.

Should be awesome!

what do blogs mean to YOU

Around the beginning of this academic year, the kcai design department began to institute a mandatory policy of creating class specific web-logs as a tool to keep students up to date with ongoing projects easily. These free yet canned websites, basically serve as virtual bulletin boards for the on campus design community. This was probably a good idea in its initial spirit, because they can help clear up confusion amongst students and allows for a convenient platform to disseminate information. However, this “original spirit” has become so illusive that it does not even exist anymore.

Teachers have begun to mandate more and more activity on every blog from students. This normally wouldn’t seem like a ridiculous requirement even for me, but only if there was a point to this online activity at all. What has happened is that students are for the most part commenting on readings or links which we have already discussed in class. This is the embodiment of useless busy work, which is something that I am not paying a ridiculous amount of money in tuition to participate in.

The other thing which teachers instruct students to do on these blogs is to create “discussion starters.” If you think about this phrase for a solid minute within its context you’ll be lucky if your brain doesn’t explode from the shear absurdity. The idea that real discourse can happen through 12 pt Arial (notice this is not set in Arial) on a blog when people are posting hours apart based on how they’re interpreting an out of context statement that someone else wrote is impossible. If there is something worthy of a discussion starter, then it should be discussed, this means face to face in person, in class or just whenever in the studio. There is no substitute for a real conversation, no matter how saturated this generation gets with myspace I think that even the other students would agree with this statement.

As I said before, I appreciate the service that these blogs can provide, however they have been tainted by how we are forced to use them. More and more I hear students complaining about these bulletin boards and I know for a fact that they posting just to post. There is no thought behind it, no reason, no desire. Posting has become something students do simply to fulfill a grade. My hope is that the entire community can reevaluate what these blogs mean and what is their purpose. If this is supposed to become an archive for future generations of students to view, they will be very disappointed by the monotonous posting which was done out of nothing other than necessity to “Get ‘er done,” as Justin Ruggieri would say.

If you have made it this far, please feel free to respond as much as possible with whatever comments you may have. But of course, since this is only a “discussion starter,” these comments are limited to this online bulletin board only.

vote 08, and kyoto conference

just got this in an email from aiga, they're asking for members to submit objective (nonpartisan) posters to help raise voter turnout in November.

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/get-out-the-vote

also got a new set of sustainable guidelines taken from the kyoto conference for design principals or something....

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/kyoto-design-declaration

Design Observer: Swastika Humor?

There is an interesting article on the swastika by Steven Heller and how it functions in cartoons. I thought it would be good to check out for those who studied the Nazi Propaganda Movement and also just for this class in general.

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/033744.html#more

KCCG group post

This is a blog for posts from the Kansas City Community Gardens group.

glaser on propaganda

check out this transcript of a milton glaser talk at a propaganda conference recently. i'm curious what you all think of it. does he have good insights? is there any good info here?

propaganda alert!!! links

I just wanted to invite everyone to post their links to their ads so that everyone can get a closer look and be more familiar with each of our ads. I assume I'm not the only one that had a hard time seeing some of the ads and understanding what it was people were trying to do. Here's mine in case anyone wanted to get a closer look.
axe commercial
beer commercial

Looking Closer readings: Bierut and Mau

A quick note on the Mau reading... although it made some good points, I really did not see a lot of room for contextual elaboration. It was all pretty much cut and dry, good practices to adhere to, so if you haven't read it yet, you should.

The reading from Michael Bierut on the other hand was likely the source for much dispute, just as the original "First Things First" stirred up 45 years ago. Having read from both sides of the debate, I understand why he would argue that the public has just as much right to a well designed dog biscuit package as they do a socially conscious poster for some non-profit organization. However, there are those designers out there that would make a conscious decision to focus their own efforts towards something they strongly believe in, even if it means less potential "bread and butter" work that makes it easier to pay the rent. I think the issue really just comes down to each designer's own personal standards. Take for instance Beirut's BAM client, which (assuming everyone reading this attended his lecture here a few years ago) we all know is probably his favorite client just by the way he always likes to use it for reference. This is the first time I've heard that BAM is greatly supported by Phillip Morris (a.k.a. "the devil", lindsey will know what I mean). As much as I am sure BAM is a wonderful non-profit to work with, I personally, in knowing now that they are backed financially by Phillip Morris, would have to choose not to work with them. Granted I wouldn't say a negative word to anyone else about taking up the job, and if I were ever in that position I might even go as far as referring another good designer for the work. But there are certain personal moralistic standards that would keep from allowing myself to promote them knowing that there is an affiliation with P.M.

I don't think it is any designer's job to judge or demean the choices of others out there, even if they do not agree with them. So as much as I respect some of the work the authors of these opposing writings, I do not entirely see cause for the argument in the first place. All we can do is present our information the best that we know how, and let people make their own decisions. It is up to each and every designer to decide where they want to draw their own lines, if they even choose to do so.

Some one owes me lunch!

Okay so right now everyone is thinking it's cool to the cold. I'm trying my hardest not get sick with everyone else. So I've gone and scanned in the reading for tomorrow and the reading after that. I will be scanning in all of the reading we have due before spring break after that you all be on you're own again. The readings will be in my public folder on the server. If you can not get on there then one you suck, and two e-mail me at lsouthwood@kcai.edu, and I'll try and send them to you. But remember I'm doing this cause I don't want any of your germs you can keep those to your-self. But some owe me lunch, you all discuses we that should be with the comments below.

Peace, Lindsey S.

more peace and flowers

that was a secrete message

did you get it?

class cancelled

hello seniors. i'm quite under the weather today, so we'll push critique back to wednesday. download the new project sheet "propaganda alert" and start working on that. i'll have to figure out how to adjust the schedule later on.

check out some more guerilla design, sort of like the propaganda we're studying, but new

http://weburbanist.com/2008/02/05/15-ingenious-humanitarian-subvertisements-creative-advertisements-that-advocate-global-causes/

friday march/rally

here is the latest info i've seen if you're interested:

... we are gathering at Revolution Church (one block north of the hurricane) at 4:00. At 4:20, we will begin moving out and will have a joyous time, showing the City of Kansas City that we do NOT welcome racism and xenophobia to our Community. After the short march and prayers for the Minutemen and our City, we will return to Revolution Church around 5:30 for a Celebration, Music and a time of sharing. The evening will conclude by 6:45 - so get down there early. We're hoping for a MASSIVE turn-out - even in the cold.

tyler

welcome seniors

well, you've made it this far. only four months to go in your kcai career. this is the place where you'll hopefully engage in lots of thought-provoking discussion. don't be afraid to voice your opinion, and dissenting viewpoints are encouraged. have fun!
tyler

I didn't vote for him.

Just wanted to jot down some thoughts on the movie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State of Becoming Green

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

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

blogging "Just to see you smile" Kelley Footlong

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

OK ANYWHO READING... SWEET!

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

PEACE OUT HOMEY G FUNKS

in a continuous state of becoming

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

Sounds like a great Idea

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

Not too bad

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

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

OMG itz t3h hippi3z!!!!

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

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

In a Continuous State of Becoming

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

the price of sustainability

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

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

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

Was this the same reading?

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

Not that ironic

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

Indie Inc

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

technology...damn

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

more blogging fun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Youth Marketing

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

All to be COOL

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

“Frat Boys” and “Bud Girls”!

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

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

Is this what our country has come to?!

MARKETING TO SHEEP

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

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

Article on Common Knowledge

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

Marketing to our youth

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

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

Culture creates the market

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

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

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

Is this a joke?

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

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

The Youth Market Saves the Day!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chumbawamba is right.

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

Youth Market Saves the Day

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


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

Cooler than You

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

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

How much is too much?

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

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.