It's a generally accepted rule that if you want consumers to buy your product, you don't insult your target market. It is clear to me that the following commercial didn't have this in mind, because the advertisement never made it to TV, but the fact that is was even considered is appalling to me.
Go here to see one of the most sexist commercials I have ever seen attempted to air in the US. Might be NSFW depending on your work environment.
I can't understand how this commercial was ever green lighted. The advertising community is not one that is totally dominated by men anymore. Women are even founding major ad agencies, women like Nancy Rice who co-founded Fallon. How, then, did this commercial which was pulled solely because women refused to buy the shoes due to the sexism of the commercial get aired? Is this level of objectification so mind numbingly high that even women in positions of power believe it to be okay?
Not once does this commercial show the woman's face. We're led to believe it's not her voice either. It doesn't even show the shoes on her feet. It is a commercial that is literally nothing but her breasts, butt, and ankles. Not only was it a terrible advertising strategy, a blatant insult to the target market, but again there are social responsibilities.
I promise this is the last blog for awhile about advertisers being socially responsible, I've been on this soap box for far too long, but attention had to be drawn to this.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
Logos: They Burn!
BMW has recently released a commercial that never actually shows its logo within the commercial. Instead, it burns the logo into the retinas of viewers. I should say right now this isn't a health hazard. At least, not anything we're not exposed to hundreds of times a day already. Look at your television and look away, you'll see blocks of color from the same concept. Surely we do more damage to our eyes from staring at a computer screen for hours a day.
It's a question of how far is too far. The creators say that they've come up with a way to "literally get inside" the heads of the audience.
I'm reminded of an episode of Futurama where the main character Fry wakes up confused because he's had an advertisement beamed into his dreams for a pair of underwear when he has the classic "go to school in just underwear" dream. The scary thing is, I think all the big advertising agencies would love to be able to do this.
We have a responsibility as people who affect other people's lives on a daily basis to realize where the line needs to be drawn between getting our products and services out there, and being intrusive. I think burning logos into people's eyes with the sole and totally non-accidental purpose of doing so is beginning to cross that line. It's a slippery slope that's very real.
If you watch people's reactions to it, no one they showed had a negative thing to say. We don't know if anyone did, of course, they're not going to show it in a BMW promotional. But the point is people are receptive of this kind of advertising. That's pretty scary. What are they going to allow us to do to them? Should we do it?
It's a question of how far is too far. The creators say that they've come up with a way to "literally get inside" the heads of the audience.
I'm reminded of an episode of Futurama where the main character Fry wakes up confused because he's had an advertisement beamed into his dreams for a pair of underwear when he has the classic "go to school in just underwear" dream. The scary thing is, I think all the big advertising agencies would love to be able to do this.
We have a responsibility as people who affect other people's lives on a daily basis to realize where the line needs to be drawn between getting our products and services out there, and being intrusive. I think burning logos into people's eyes with the sole and totally non-accidental purpose of doing so is beginning to cross that line. It's a slippery slope that's very real.
If you watch people's reactions to it, no one they showed had a negative thing to say. We don't know if anyone did, of course, they're not going to show it in a BMW promotional. But the point is people are receptive of this kind of advertising. That's pretty scary. What are they going to allow us to do to them? Should we do it?
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Logos for People?
I read an article in central Michigan's Morning Sun today about the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe taking steps to copyright a logo and tag line they've created for themselves. It got me thinking about what kinds of things should be considered "logos."
Technically, people have used "logos" in the most basic sense of the word (a symbol representing a person or group of people) for thousands of years. Both coat of arms and flags could be considered logos. Then again, I think the word means something more (or less?). When I think of the word "logo" one major idea comes to mind; that it's a symbol representing a person or group of people who are working to profit from a business venture. The word "logo" is a representation of a business trying to sell products and services.
So when I hear that the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe is working to copyright not a coat of arms, a mantra, a crest, a motto, or any of those other words, but a logo and a tag line it makes me die a little on the inside. Have we pushed the idea that consumerism is priority one so much that groups of people feel like they need to brand themselves and sell their identities? I would just brush this off as people using design jargon they don't really understand, but one of the members of the tribe tried to use this logo for a Facebook page dedicated to the tribe and was told to remove it. To me (and many members of the tribe) this is the equivalent of us making a group about loving America and the government telling us we can't use the Bald Eagle or the American Flag for the page's image. It shows very clear intent to use the image for the purpose of selling products and services, and fear that a group about the tribe may tarnish that logo's image.
I think what depresses me so much about the "Sag Chips" (as they call themselves) getting themselves a logo and tagline is that groups of people should be more than a business. As a Brand Director, as a graphic designer, as someone whose job it is to cultivate a company's image I am not trying to belittle what a business is, or what it can be. What I will say, however, is that the daily interactions people have, the experiences they share, and the human spirit in general amount to (and should amount to!) so much more than a business. To take a culture as unique and wonderful as that of the Native Americans and package it into a mere business is depressing to me. I understand that this one location is not an isolated incident for them, that Native Americans profiting on their image is nothing unique, but this is the first I've heard of a tribe making a business of their actual name.
If you're going to make a symbol for you, for a group of people, let it remain just that: a symbol. It is going to mean so much more as a symbol than it can as a logo.
Technically, people have used "logos" in the most basic sense of the word (a symbol representing a person or group of people) for thousands of years. Both coat of arms and flags could be considered logos. Then again, I think the word means something more (or less?). When I think of the word "logo" one major idea comes to mind; that it's a symbol representing a person or group of people who are working to profit from a business venture. The word "logo" is a representation of a business trying to sell products and services.
So when I hear that the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe is working to copyright not a coat of arms, a mantra, a crest, a motto, or any of those other words, but a logo and a tag line it makes me die a little on the inside. Have we pushed the idea that consumerism is priority one so much that groups of people feel like they need to brand themselves and sell their identities? I would just brush this off as people using design jargon they don't really understand, but one of the members of the tribe tried to use this logo for a Facebook page dedicated to the tribe and was told to remove it. To me (and many members of the tribe) this is the equivalent of us making a group about loving America and the government telling us we can't use the Bald Eagle or the American Flag for the page's image. It shows very clear intent to use the image for the purpose of selling products and services, and fear that a group about the tribe may tarnish that logo's image.
I think what depresses me so much about the "Sag Chips" (as they call themselves) getting themselves a logo and tagline is that groups of people should be more than a business. As a Brand Director, as a graphic designer, as someone whose job it is to cultivate a company's image I am not trying to belittle what a business is, or what it can be. What I will say, however, is that the daily interactions people have, the experiences they share, and the human spirit in general amount to (and should amount to!) so much more than a business. To take a culture as unique and wonderful as that of the Native Americans and package it into a mere business is depressing to me. I understand that this one location is not an isolated incident for them, that Native Americans profiting on their image is nothing unique, but this is the first I've heard of a tribe making a business of their actual name.
If you're going to make a symbol for you, for a group of people, let it remain just that: a symbol. It is going to mean so much more as a symbol than it can as a logo.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Dedication to Soap
In 1926 Procter & Gamble released a soap claiming to be unlike any other. Not only was it perfumed, but would not irritate the skin. It was smooth and light pink, unlike many other soaps which were other colors that better hid imperfections. It was supposed to make women feel soft and beautiful with a flawless complexion while other soaps were marketed mainly to get people clean. The campaign for Camay soap was a brilliant stroke of advertising, and the evidence stands even now.
While I am both far too young to have gotten to appreciate that change and am a man who was clearly not their target demographic, I can appreciate good identity work when I see it even if it is old. Camay is slowly making its way off the retail shelves in the US, where its popularity is growing slim, yet there are still thousands of older people clamoring for their Camay soap. Thankfully for them, Camay is not being discontinued and is still fairly popular in Europe which means they can purchase it online...if they're tech savvy enough.
This is a brand that has maintained customer loyalty for the duration of thousands of people's lives. Its identity, and in turn how customers identify with it, is so strong that in an age where people will switch smart phone brands because they can't find an app that will brush their teeth for them Camay has managed to retain customers. Let us analyze the decisions they've made that helped lead to this dedication.
The biggest and most important decision Procter & Gamble made was branding Camay as a beauty product. Compared to the cost of actual perfumes and makeup, soap has always been relatively cheap. To scent it and then brand it to make women feel beautiful and lovely gave women the ability to purchase something that was cheap and dual purposed; it kept them clean which justified spending money on it in the first place, and as a bonus worked as a beauty product which saved their skin from the irritation of regular soap. This is an example of marketing working hand in hand with product development, which I feel doesn't happen as often now as it should. More often that not we see companies trying to push a product that's not actually an improvement on anything, relying on marketing to get the job done instead of creating something worthwhile.
The second most important decision is brand consistency. The logo has been through small changes from advertisement to advertisement and package to package (as design was wont to do in the mid 1900's) but on the whole has remained the same in the US for the duration of its existence. Procter & Gamble created an identity that was elegant, simple, and timeless right off the bat, making them immune to the various identity crises companies have been through over the course of Camay's life. Companies should always strive for this kind of logo, because over time it will establish immense amounts of credibility and familiarity with customers. Once you change it there will ALWAYS, 100% of the time, be a group of your customers uncomfortable with the change no matter how great it is. To a loyal customer, changing your logo is like knowing a friend for years who then gets plastic surgery on their face. You'll never be able to look at them the same way again.
The third, and most important, decision wasn't really even a choice. It was something that developed because Camay provided a product that mattered to consumers. An attitude, a lifestyle, began to focus around Camay. According to NYT writer Ricki Morrell: "Tish Stoker Signet, 58, a psychotherapist in Davidson, N.C., remembers that, as a child, she and her mother would paint the soaps’ cameo imprints gold, then give them as sachets to older women at Christmas." Stories like that aren't things you can really plan when creating a brand, though marketers covet this testimonial without the corporate backdrop more than anything else. It's what happens when you create a product and brand that compliment each other so well customers look at the product as an inseparable part of their lives...
...and that's what has happened now as thousands of elderly women try to introduce themselves to the internet so they can get a part of their lives back.
While I am both far too young to have gotten to appreciate that change and am a man who was clearly not their target demographic, I can appreciate good identity work when I see it even if it is old. Camay is slowly making its way off the retail shelves in the US, where its popularity is growing slim, yet there are still thousands of older people clamoring for their Camay soap. Thankfully for them, Camay is not being discontinued and is still fairly popular in Europe which means they can purchase it online...if they're tech savvy enough.
This is a brand that has maintained customer loyalty for the duration of thousands of people's lives. Its identity, and in turn how customers identify with it, is so strong that in an age where people will switch smart phone brands because they can't find an app that will brush their teeth for them Camay has managed to retain customers. Let us analyze the decisions they've made that helped lead to this dedication.
The biggest and most important decision Procter & Gamble made was branding Camay as a beauty product. Compared to the cost of actual perfumes and makeup, soap has always been relatively cheap. To scent it and then brand it to make women feel beautiful and lovely gave women the ability to purchase something that was cheap and dual purposed; it kept them clean which justified spending money on it in the first place, and as a bonus worked as a beauty product which saved their skin from the irritation of regular soap. This is an example of marketing working hand in hand with product development, which I feel doesn't happen as often now as it should. More often that not we see companies trying to push a product that's not actually an improvement on anything, relying on marketing to get the job done instead of creating something worthwhile.
The second most important decision is brand consistency. The logo has been through small changes from advertisement to advertisement and package to package (as design was wont to do in the mid 1900's) but on the whole has remained the same in the US for the duration of its existence. Procter & Gamble created an identity that was elegant, simple, and timeless right off the bat, making them immune to the various identity crises companies have been through over the course of Camay's life. Companies should always strive for this kind of logo, because over time it will establish immense amounts of credibility and familiarity with customers. Once you change it there will ALWAYS, 100% of the time, be a group of your customers uncomfortable with the change no matter how great it is. To a loyal customer, changing your logo is like knowing a friend for years who then gets plastic surgery on their face. You'll never be able to look at them the same way again.
The third, and most important, decision wasn't really even a choice. It was something that developed because Camay provided a product that mattered to consumers. An attitude, a lifestyle, began to focus around Camay. According to NYT writer Ricki Morrell: "Tish Stoker Signet, 58, a psychotherapist in Davidson, N.C., remembers that, as a child, she and her mother would paint the soaps’ cameo imprints gold, then give them as sachets to older women at Christmas." Stories like that aren't things you can really plan when creating a brand, though marketers covet this testimonial without the corporate backdrop more than anything else. It's what happens when you create a product and brand that compliment each other so well customers look at the product as an inseparable part of their lives...
...and that's what has happened now as thousands of elderly women try to introduce themselves to the internet so they can get a part of their lives back.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)