inspirational..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HMm9jrgDzM

are you using this knowledge?

i have recently been in a brief conversation about this class with a student from the university of washington who is working on a capstone project about ethics in design. she wondered if you are taking things you're learning in this class and applying them elsewhere in your design work, and if so, how is it affecting how you approach your work? i know it's a bit early in the semester, but i'm curious. thoughts?

i'm also interested in those who don't think this information is applicable to your work, and why that is so.

No Advertising

A few years ago the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil banned all forms of outdoor advertising with the intent of cleaning up the "visual pollution" of the city. Because of the law, billboards were covered, signs were painted over and posters were taken down. The idea of a city devoid of advertising is quite fascinating to me because it is such an important part of visual communication and visual persuasion. Without it, I wonder if we'll see new and innovative forms of advertisements from the city of Sao Paulo.

What do you all think? What if it's not just Sao Paulo, Brazil that bans all forms of outdoor advertising, but the whole world? Is outdoor advertising necessary?
CLICK HERE to read a great article on Sao Paulo
CLICK HERE to view flickr images

am I harming the public?

We may have finished our "responsibility chart" but there is at least one responsibility that appears on both our list and the AIGA's that seems inherently open to question; 6.1 on the AIGA's standards...

"A professional designer shall avoid projects that will result in harm to the public."

So what exactly is harm?

Are there any objective grounds for defining harm?

Is physical harm less subjective?

Is harm implicit in change?

Who constitutes "the public"?(added 02/12 9:00 pm)

I think we could all benefit from trying to answer some of these questions. Comments please.

i'm sorry but i had to post this

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

ABTV 14: The Power of Conformity

What makes a person conform to something as simple as they way they stand in an elevator?

If you were placed in this situation would you "adapt?"

What other simple situations would someone's behavior change so rapidly if a difference occurred between them and others?

GOOD poster contest

GOOD magazine is beginning their second annual 50x70 poster contest, "the project that helps social communication". topics to address include child labor, climate change, healthcare deprivation, hiv/aids, nuclear emergency, war on terror, and women's rights violation.

while i definitely think this project is a worthy one, and have made several similar posters myself, i question the effectiveness of this format to actually do anything. do posters work? what does it take for a graphic designer to produce a worthwhile communication that actually reaches an audience effectively?

on Pointing the Blame

Have YOU made a finger pointing poster? is a great reflection to our last reading.

  “Why aren’t you joining the army, my dear?”
  “Sorry, I don’t feel well.”
  “Ah, I see.”

Art. Lebedev Studio also offers an interestingly explicit manifesto.

About your tupperware: easy greening

more info about this article check this site below

www.care2.com/greenliving/kitchen-plastic-easy-greening.html

to those creating a manifesto...

While doing some research I stumbled upon a particularly inspiring manifesto by the designer Bruce Mau. I believe we could all benefit from following any one of his ideals. Get inspired. 

bill evans on establishing expectations of oneself

the universal mind of bill evans presented itself to me today and affirmed that the internet, when used responsibly, can really produce valuable opportunities for edifying discoveries.

throughout the series, mr. evans frequently refers to building upon a stable reference -- to allow complexity to evolve organically from what is "simple and honest." he reminds us that principles hold primacy over style.

in video 4/5, (5:00 in for the impatient) mr. evans reveals his own simple and honest principle -- to "take care of the music." mr. evans concluded that the most important thing he could do was to establish a reasonable expectation of himself, a declaration of his devotion to music. a personal manifesto, if you will.

the result? authentic and inimitable expressions -- precision and mastery of craft so profound that it feels more like virtue than talent. mr. evans teaches us that genius requires a sincere ethic at its core. anything else is a disingenuous approximation.

graphic agitation reading

answer any or all of the following questions, or start your own thread!

which of these movements or people resonated with you most and why?

were there activities that you were not aware of before reading this?

for those of you doing the visual history report, which movement do you plan on reporting on and why?

weekly reading list+project schedule

a summary of your required visual advocacy readings for the semester. each project has suggested readings that complement that work, and of course you are encouraged to pursue those readings as well. with the exception of weeks 2 and 5 [aiga website content] all readings are on the reserve shelf.

week 1 jan 26
graphic agitation pp 14-27

week 2 feb 2
aiga standards of professional practice

week 3 feb 9
how to be a designer... pp 18-27

week 4 feb 16
"good citizenship: design as a social and political force" citizen designer pp 2-8

week 5 feb 23
visualizing a revolution: emory douglas and the black panther newspaper
PROJECT 1 DUE WED FEB 25

week 6 mar 2
cradle to cradle pp 45–67

week 7 mar 9
cradle to cradle pp 68–91

week 8 mar 16
spring break

week 9 mar 23
looking closer four pp 5, 10–21

week 10 mar 30
"the cultural influence of brands" citizen designer pp 70-81
PROJECT 2 DUE FRI APRIL 3

week 11 apr 6
conscientious objectives pp 26-29 and celery design studio

week 12 apr 13

week 13 apr 20

week 14 apr 27

week 15 may 4
PROJECT 3 DUE WED MAY 6

blog discussion / interaction

writing, like the design process, can be a way to think out loud, synthesize ideas, demonstrate understanding, and persuade others. in short, it’s another mode of making and learning – something worth doing.

objectives
at the project’s end, you should be able to:

• describe at an advanced level what visual advocacy is, and apply it through your own work in this class.
• hold a perspective on design’s role in commerce.
• hold a perspective, at a basic level, on our ethical responsibilities and opportunities as creators of visual culture.
• explain at a basic level graphic design’s role in the history of advocacy and communication of socio-political ideas.
• describe at a proficient level the various ends to which design may be used
• hold a perspective on various relevant social / political issues, and apply that through meaningful visual explorations beyond the normal designer–client relationship.
• hold a perspective on how we might begin to transform design practice to reflect our ethics.
• apply critical thinking skills to making, speaking, reading, and writing about design issues at a basic level.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
through the course of this semester, introduce or participate in a minimum of eight discussions on the course blog [ http://visualadvocacy.blogspot.com ], with at least one of those being a discussion-starter. you are invited to voice your opinion on readings, class discussions, projects, or outside topics you discover to be relevant to this course. opposing viewpoints and heated debate [keep it civil] are encouraged. basically all of the course objectives above can be satisfied through writing in one way or another.

SPECIFICATIONS / REQUIRED CONTENT
specifications: grading will be based primarily on the quality [thoughtful, logical, well-written] of your posts, but you should also have the minimum eight posts for a good level of engagement with your peers.

I wanna be on TV!!!!

(So Philipe Starck is the inspiration for all my blog posts I guess.)

And if you guys have become aces in product design over the last couple of weeks...

Philipe Starck is looking for young designers for his new reality television show 

design is the "in" thing now i guess. It should be fun to listen to kids argue as passionately about if form or function is more important as the real world people argue about who slept with who and who drinks too much.

Class is over, and I don't care

This is still a pretty cool article.

"Being a professional...

...means to put aside one's personal reactions regardless of the situation and to carry on. Prostitutes, practitioners of the so-called oldest profession, must maintain an extreme of cool objectivity about this most intimate of human activities, highly disciplining their personal responses to deliver an impartial and consistent product to their clients."
-katherine mccoy, in "design as a social and political force"

sound familiar? thinking back to the "2-points of view" project, how does this make you feel? consider also the "stereotype" of the high priced prostitute that made its way onto the collaborative poster. many excuses were made as to why the 2pov project was undertaken, despite contrary beliefs. many were in the name of education, getting a grade, a degree. what excuses will come when a $3000-a-month paycheck is on the line?

i recall hearing more than once, via the blog, personal discussions, or in crit, the notion of objectivity or impartiality that kathy mentions above. is that possible at all? should designers strive for it regardless? is it unethical to editorialize as a visual communicator, as a citizen designer?

i wonder if being a designer makes us think differently about what we are allowed to do/say as citizens, as if our professional status disqualifies us from making personal, opinionated statements for public consideration. don't we elect politicians because of their personal stances on issues? don't we gravitate toward a specific hairstylist because of their personal flair and opinions about fashion?

Where R the Future Designers?

Jamie shed light on this great message by Dan Staffer about my senior degree project. It starts questioning where all of our future designers will be if we keep forcing them away from abstract thinking. It's a hard question to ask. I think the most important element is to let the kids have fun. As simple and vague as a solution as this is, it repairs the motivation to learn that often gets lost.

A Brief Message: No Child Left Behind is Leaving Designers Behind

Maybe this semester can be summed up...

... by a post on Speak Up.

youtube it!

alright kids...

i didn't see a post for this yet

so here it is. post your youtube links hurrrrrrrrrr

(sadly, mine won't convert the video this time.....and it's an mov....wtf mate?!)

yours,

Tina

Target: Design for All

Target: Design for All?

this article brings up a couple interesting points...

first of all, i question their labeling Target as a"designer" department store. actually I am unsure what defines something as a "designer" product. is it something that is designed by a designer? and isn't everything technically designed by someone? i think that Target is just really good at marketing products that are trendy for younger generations and that sets them apart from other places like walmart or kmart. 

"Is Target only committed to profitable design ventures?" 

Yes, as they should be. If something isn't profitable, customers aren't buying it, and if customers aren't buying it, it's probably because they don't like it, don't want it, or don't need it. But I would probably enjoy some of the more "edgy" products as opposed to the more generic ones.

labor day / may day

from wikipedia, labor day page, the "controversies" section:

"The Knights of Labor organized the original parade on Tuesday, September 5, 1882 in New York City. In 1884 another parade was held, and the Knights passed resolutions to make this an annual event. Other labor organizations (and there were many), but notably the affiliates of the International Workingmen's Association, many of whom were socialists or anarchists, favored a May 1 holiday. In 1886 came the general strike which eventually won the eight-hour workday in the United States. These events are today commemorated as Labor Day in virtually every country in the world, with the notable exceptions being the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. With the Chicago Haymarket riots in early May of 1886, President Grover Cleveland believed that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate the riots. Thus, fearing that it might strengthen the socialist movement, he quickly moved in 1887 to support the position of the Knights of Labor and their date for Labor Day."

i think it's telling that we are one of four countries in the western world that have kept this celebration a safe distance from its actual intent -- to celebrate the advances everyday people have made in improving their lives through fighting for better working conditions that we enjoy today. do you think the same motivations and values might be behind why we don't sign the kyoto treaty or recognize our own wartime atrocities as terrorism?

2 points-of-view project thoughts

i'm interested in the ethical implications of the work you did. comment here on the following questions:
how did you feel when you were assigned the subject matter?
why did you do the work?
did you ever consider not doing the work, or the ramifications of refusing it?
how would you respond in a professional setting to this type of project?

Post Video Links Here

Post your video links for our assignment here

ecologicly friendly advertisments

heres a link to some a list of ads which came out recently from both greenpeace and wwf.

http://www.divinecaroline.com/article/22355/48254-green-ad-effect

some of them you may have seen, but it's fairly thorough, unfortunately the author knows nothing about design, and doesn't talk about it at all. look for the chinese car emissions guerrilla piece, it's the best one...

links for two-points-of-view project

here is what i showed in class:
mainstreaming children with disabilities p.s.a.
inconvenient truth trailer
james victore, graphic designer
what barry says and taking liberties [in projects section]
wal-mart info graphic
free range studios - video section
the story of stuff

a new one:
the ronin go to motion > "the truth about food" titles

a greenpeace video about dove here. this story is part of an interesting blog.

This doesn't necessarily have to do with design. But it definitely falls under the category of advocacy of "art". This story has been going around on the net and I just needed to share it somewhere. If you're an animal lover, beware, cuz this story is pretty sick:

In 2007, the 'artist' Guillermo Vargas Habacuc, took a dog from the street, tied him to a rope in an art gallery, and starved him to death.

For several days, the 'artist' and the visitors of the exhibition have watched emotionless the shameful 'masterpiece' based on the dog's agony, until eventually he died.

Does it look like art to you?

But this is not all... the prestigious Visual Arts Biennial of the Central American decided that the 'installation' was actually art, so that Guillermo Vargas Habacuc has been invited to repeat his cruel action for the biennial of 2008.

It takes a second to help put a stop to animal abuse. Sign the petetion to stop this asshole by going to http://www.petitiononline.com/ea6gk/petition.html

What is propaganda?

"While propaganda influences the behavior of individuals, it is important to bear in mind that it is only one of the means by which man’s behavior is influenced. There are other forms of inducement employed in winning assent or compliance. In limited or wholesale degree, depending upon the political organization of a given country, men have used force or violence to control people. They have resorted to boycott, bribery, passive resistance, and other techniques. Bribes, bullets, and bread have been called symbols of some of the actions that men have taken to force people into particular patterns of behavior."

I enjoyed this because it addresses the bad connotations often associated with propaganda. Is propaganda really all that bad, or is just because we often associate it with historical events such as world war?

what is propaganda?

Designer of 2015

I was on the AIGA site and stumbled across this article. It mostly talks about what t-gal brought up in class today, but i thought there were some good incites. Its pretty much insane to think that the end of our careers will be somewhere around 2060. that freaks me out to think that far into the future!

http://www.aiga.org/content.cfm/initiatives-designer-of-2015

barcodes don't have to be evil?

http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2008/04/japanese-creative-barcodes.html

above is a link to a blog entry somewhere about barcodes. but wait theres more!

apparently certain creative types have taken the package designers worst enemy and juxtaposed it in ways that actually make it an integrated design element. some of these you have seen before, but the list gets much more experimental the farther you go down. maybe next we can set our sights on nutrition facts.

No Logo: No Jobs

Sometimes I really have to rethink what made me want to become a designer in the first place, and readings like this latest one definitely keep me questioning what it is I'm doing. There's a reason why I try very hard to make sure what people think I do is not solely marketing driven. I know that the odds favor that I'll end up working in some design firm or another advertising consumer wants, rather than society's needs, but I still stand by what I said in the earlier post about the Beirut reading. I want to do what I can to get to the point where I can design for things that are meaningful to me. I know this doesn't really say all that much about the reading itself, but if you've read it, you'll probably understand my frustration. So many of today's corporations are falling into that Nike mode of being entirely a branding company, but at what cost?? They spend millions in order to make millions, but to make sure they keep their profits as high as possible, they try to skirt around paying those factory workers in the Cavite zone their $6 a day! Anyway maybe I'll add more if we discuss the reading in class, but I just had to vent some frustrations while it was still fresh in my mind. Thanks T-Gal for assigning a depressing reading! However things like this are important to keep in the back of your mind so you try not to forget what's really going on in the world, design related or otherwise, so it was definitely worth the read.

Design is a dreadful form of expression

That's what Philippe Starck is now saying. But I agree that design should start being focus on more than just fancy, cool looking consumer goods. But those should work well also.

I wonder if he would have said that before making his millions? not just when it's time to retire.

Jerk

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.