Have you seen the commercial on TV by Allstate Insurance? It is just terrible. It starts out saying "Someone once said that we'll all be famous for fifteen minutes." It goes on to say that Allstate believes that you deserve more than fifteen minutes if that's what it takes to ensure you get the coverage that's right for you. I am hoping that if I take a few minutes to dissect this commercial I will be able to understand why it bothers me so much.

I came across this story on www.adrants.com:"Study Confirms Obvious: Web Central to Gen X and Y."I have been looking for some places that reinforce my growing belief that there is a new consumer who is going to revolutionize the advertising industry. The story on Adrants shows one of the keys to the power of the new consumer. The internet is giving power to the consumer like nothing else. As I continue to find info to backup my thoughts, I will hopefully explain better how I foresee the changing role of the consumer and how it is going to revolutionize the advertising industry.

A

I found this funny April Fools joke on Seth Godin's blog:Nike buys rights to the new planet Sedna! One of the best lines in "Fight Club" (and there are so many) is "When deep space exploration ramps up, it will be corporations that name
everything. The IBM Stellar Sphere. The Philip Morris Galaxy. Planet Starbucks." Chuck Palahniuk was dead on when he penned his masterpiece, "Fight Club." It is only a matter of time before a major corporation takes the next step.

A

A couple of posts back I was talking about a new consumer. I wanted to explain a little more what I meant. We, as consumers, are changing the way companies sell their products. We are also realizing that we have more and more power in the marketplace. The three main reasons for this are: 1. We have an increased disposable income, 2. We have access to unlimited market information, and 3. We are immune to advertisements. Here is what that means...

A few posts back, I ripped on Allstate for using a quote by Andy Warhol in a commercial, and not giving him credit. Instead of being afraid of how a Warhol reference would "flavor" their ad, Campbell's Soup has embraced Warhol and are launching a special promotion with soup labels based on Warhol's paintings. "Campbell celebrates the pop artist with limited edition soup cans bearing his colorful renditions of the classic tomato soup label. Campbell unveils a special four-pack of Campbell's tomato soup at Giant Eagle supermarkets. The pack features the Warhol-inspired labels instead of the trademark red and white labels that have adorned the can for more than 100 years."

I wonder if Warhol would be upset by a huge corporation using him to sell their products. In the case of Allstate, maybe, but in the case of Campbell's probably not. It would be pretty funny if he did considering he benefited so much from appropriating their soup can. Most likely, he would recognize the irony of the situation and graciously "allow" them to use paintings of their own products. Andy's words never seemed more appropriate: "If a mirror looks at it's reflection, what does it see?"

It is hard enough convincing the client's I work for of the importance of differentiating themselves. However, If you really want to be successful you need to be more than different from your competitors. Seth Godin, who is really on the ball with current marketing trends recently posted a comment on his blog saying differentiation and segmentation are not enough anymore. Traditional advertisements aren't working. The ads that do work are the ones who "create something worth talking about," as Seth says. That is what sets the fantastic companies apart from the mediocre. It seems so obvious, but it is so hard to convince people to take that risk. How do you break the cycle of addiction to mediocrity?

I came across an interesting post on A Welsh View titled "Advertisments Are Cropping Up In Some Weird Places." SpiderMan II is putting 4 inch by 4 inch ads on bases in 15 major league ballparks according to Yahoo News.It doesn't really bother me that they are using the bases as another way to advertise, but it doesn't seem like an effective place to put an ad. I'm sure that on TV they will have closeups of the bases as they cut to a commercial and announce the games sponsors, but besides that, I don't think they will even be noticeable. Definitely not by people at the games. Especially not in the nose-bleeds where I usually end up. On television, I doubt that you will even be able to read the ad in slow replays of sliding into the bases. Does this seem odd to anyone else?

Next to a news article on Yahoo titled "N.J. Couple Indicted in Starvation Case," there is an ad for a Weight Loss Patch. Yahoo's ads are randomly generated (not like the google ads I have to the left that try to match appropriate ads with the content of my page). Thanks to Travis Gray for bringing this ironic pairing to our attention.

I read a very insightful article on the Corante Blog titled Many-to-Many: Moblogging from the front and the new Reformation. The article compares the impact of the invention of the digital camera to the impact of the invention of the printing press. (The printing press allowed Bibles to be widely distributed. The church could no longer control the direct perception of scripture. The result was the Protestant Reformation.) The article sites the distribution of digital photos of torture in Iraq and the release of photos of coffins of American soldiers as examples of the military's loss of control over information. As we begin to recognize the tremendous impact digital photography is having on our world, I think there are very important questions we need to ask. The one that come to mind first is: How do we recognize truth in photography? Any graphic designer knows how easy it is to manipulate an image. A photo should never be confused with truth. Working in advertising, that is not something we want people to recognize. We want people to follow the equation that product = happiness = reality. I think that the digital revolution is starting to crack that formula for success. Perhaps like the church, advertising will benefit from a reformation.

The evolution of desktop publishing has convinced the world that everyone can be a designer. You don't have to look very far to see examples of people who actually believe this lie. I came across the animated gif above, and it reminded me of the epidemic of desktop publishing. Don't get me wrong, I think its great that anyone can make their own letterheads, powerpoints, Web sites, or whatever. The problem is that people get proud of their work, and think what they are doing is graphic design. Imagine that the guy who designed pepperman above is the president of company X. Company X hires you to design their logo. Chances are, you are in for a less than fun project. So what is the solution? I will let you know when I figure it out. Meanwhile, I am thinking it would be fun to start posting examples of really bad design. There isn't a shortage, so feel free to send me examples as you come across them.

I stumbled across an article in Direct Magazine where a self-proclaimed "Makeover Maven" finds bad ads and gives them a makeover. The reason I am writing about this is because he really ruined an ad that really wasn't that bad. Guess which add above he designed. The ad on the right is what the ad looked like after the Maven had his way with it. Here are the three arguments he made in support of his ad followed by my comments about why he made the ad worse.

1. Clarify and strengthen the promise in the headline.
Well, you succeeded in making the headline longer. Unfortunately, you took all the life out of it, and now there is no connection to the image. If that wasn't bad enough, you added a subhead that successfully bores the reader before they even get to the headline. And why did you change the photography from one dominant graphic that supports the headline to three low impact shots with no connection to the text? The Maven's rational: "a young couple running through the surf doesn't really convey anything beyond 'Take the million and run.'" At least thats better than three photos that have nothing to do with the headline.

2. Sell the sizzle, not the steak.
Are you kidding me? SHOW THE STEAK! Nobody is going to stop to read a page of 8pt type explaining to me why I should buy a steak. You covered the whole page with type, and three same sized photos. Where is the white space? Where is the hierarchy. Sorry sir, but noone is going to read your ad.

3. Strengthen the interactivity.
The Maven actually makes a couple of good points here about about sending them to a Web site that tracks the success rate of the ad. The ironic thing is that if they were to take his advice about the ad, when they tracked the success of the ad through the Web address, they would realize that nobody read the ad because of how poorly it was designed.

I emailed my comments to the Makeover Maven, and I will let you know if he responds.

Fact: People ages 13-24 spend more time online than watching television.

The marketing community is endlessly frustrated when they try to target this coveted age group. Researchers who categorize and segment the population, are realizing an undeniable truth. No matter how much research you do, there isn't a formula that allows media to control people. Young people (and increasingly everyone else) go online because there they have the ability to control their overall experience. Loud and clear, they are sending this message:

"When we want to buy something, we will let you know. In the meantime, leave us alone!"

What does this mean to the advertising world? Ads that are unwanted or unseen are basically television static. If you are going to interupt someone with an ad, you better say something worth listening too. If your ad doesn't improve someone's life, it will at best be forgotten. At worst it will hurt the reputation of the company running the ad.

Why wasn't I required to read "Ogilvy on Advertising" in college? Yeah, its dated, but I wish I was learning this stuff instead of black and white illustration. Anyway, I am a third of the way through the book, and he has made 3 chess references that I can't help but comment on. A chance to talk about chess in the context of graphic design doesn't come along often, so I have to take it.

Ogilvy quotes Raymond Chandler as saying, "Chess is about as elaborate a waste of human intelligence as you could find anywhere outside an advertising agency."

So what is viral marketing? Well, if you make a good enough ad, you don't have to promote it. It will spread on its own like a virus. If you haven't seen them already, below are links to some of the highest profile viral campaigns:

Volvo's mocumentary
Burger King's Subservient Chicken
Honda's cog movie for the Accord
Some cool short films for BMW by some famous directors
American Express's Jerry Seinfeld and Superman movie

If you want to learn more about viral marketing, there is a blog dedicated to the subject called the Viral Marketing Blog.

Ogilvy arrogantly says, "As a former door-to-door salesman, I shall go to my grave believing that, given two minutes on television, I could sell any product on the face of the earth." It is precisely that arrogance that made me think I was really going to hate this book. After reading the book, however, I am willing to bet that he would only need one minute on television to sell any product on Earth. He is a fantastic salesman, and I would describe this book as a fantastic salesman doing a great job of selling his philosophy on advertising. So what is that philosophy, and where does the sales pitch end, and truth begin?

I was critical of Tom Collin's makeover of a Hilton ad in his "Makeover Maven" section in Direct magazine a few weeks ago. I emailed my comments to Tom in the hopes that he might visit our site, and respond to my thoughts. To my delight, I got an email today from Direct asking for my permission to print my letter to Tom in an upcoming issue of Direct. It should be interesting to see how the conversation develops. You can find my original critique of the makeover here. I gave permission to edit and print my letter, and asked them to mention the address of our blog. Stay tuned.

You may have seen commercials for Coke's new contest, called "Unexpected Summer." They have put a gps/cell phone device in winning cans. Once you find out you are a winner, you call Coke on the cell phone, and then they will track you down via the GPS, and surprise you at an unspecified time. The tagline is, "You can Win, but you can't hide." According to fool.com, the military is a little nervous about the promotion. They apparently told soldiers not to bring the cell phone cans to classified meetings. The attention of the military can only help spread the buzz about their promotion. If you want to learn more about it, Coke has a pretty cool site built with Flash that explains the technology, and lets you see where the winning cans are in the USA.

I heard a story on NPR today about Paul Curtis who goes by the name "Moose." He is a Brittish street artist who makes his graffiti (if you can call it that) by cleaning his images out of the dirt and grime of the walls, streets, tile, and anything dirty. You can see some of the stunning work he has done at symbolix.com

There are two really interesting angles to this story. First, he has gotten in trouble with the police for vandalizing property. The thing is, his graffiti usually only lasts a couple of days. The only marks he makes leave the surface cleaner than before he was there. Can you convict a person for cleaning a public place? Better yet, would you convict a child for writing their name in the steamed up windows on a public bus?

The second interesting angle is that Moose has been using his graffiti as advertisements for high profile companies like Big Brother and X-box. The Big Brother work is especially cool. It is just a huge logo of an eye looking out from walls, windows, pillars, and roads. It says Big Brother perfectly.

Moose's work is fascinating becuase it adds a new dimension to the art vs. vandalism issue that makes graffiti so controversial and intriguing. When you add corporate sposorship and subtract the damage to property, this takes graffiti to a new level. I love this concept, and I wish I would have thought of it first.

In anticipation of Lance Armstrong winning the Tour de France, here is a link to one of my favorite commercials on TV right now. I think it is longer than the one running on TV, so enjoy.

If you haven't seen this Audi commercial, it is definitely worth repeat viewings. The M.C. Escher influenced illusions are so well done that I wonder if the majority of viewers will even notice them. Can a commercial this subtle compete with the ones that are shouting for your attention? I hope it can, but I am not sure. There is a good article on cgnetworks about the making of the commercial if you are interested in learning more.

MINI’s Wired magazine ad caught my attention for the third time last week. This month their ad included coupons for buy one dozen get one dozen free Krispy Kreme doughnuts. The last one I saw had a page of lettering stickers. The ad before that was perforated so it could be broken down to 9 trading cards. The cards (which reminded me of Garbage Pail Kids) matched a different personality with a different MINI car.

I think this is great advertising. It is interesting that this particular issue of Wired has an article all about how traditional advertising is failing (I am going to write about it when I get a chance). Along the lines of Seth Godin’s “Free Prize” theory, these ads show that you have to give something extra if you expect to make advertising work for you. Would I buy a MINI just to get free doughnuts? Of course not. But I also wouldn’t remember their ad if it was like all the other car ads.

This month’s issue of Wired has a really good article titled “Lost Boys.” It is all about how the 18-34 male is reinventing advertising. I have picked up bits and pieces of this theory here and there, but it was nice to see the argument presented together supported by so many stats and credible sources. I encourage you to read the article if you can, but here is a synopsis (sprinkled with links to some of my posts that talk about the issues).

The young male demographic is the hardest to reach and most intensely targeted group of people in North America. As the young male’s habits are changing, advertisers are forced to change methods that no longer work. People are spending less and less time watching tv, and spending more and more time online. With the decline of traditional advertising, advertisers are looking for new ways to promote their product. Web advertising as well as viral schemes are some of the solutions that are showing promise. I was impressed to see that wired mentioned Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point and Seth Godin’s Unleashing the Ideavirus. It is reassuring to see that I have been reading the right books. My favorite line in the article says “If you want to capture this demographic’s attention, be prepared to entertain and don’t be afraid to polarize the audience. I think this is good advice.

Along the same lines, on Wired’s blog last week they had a post showing some of the ways Hollywood’s advertising is changing.

Here is a link to a photoshop contest where people put modern products in vintage ads Some of them are better than others, but it is good for a laugh or two. (link via Boing Boing)

Do graphic designers like to collect things more than the average person? Maybe its just me, but I can really relate to Tari Akpodiete, a web designer who has collected over 15,000 banner ads and posted them on her site called Banner Report. Even more impressive than the volume is that you can search the collection by size, file type, and keyword. Obsessive, maybe, but is a pretty impressive collection. It is also a great tool for any designer that wants to see what has been done in the past.

When a company has a high quality product, the loyalty of their customers is often more valuable than any advertisement they could buy. The catch phrase lately has been “customer evangelist.” I would probably come pretty close to fitting that description when it comes to Toyota, and I thought I would share a few highlights from my day at the Toyota dealership last week.

A reputable company should never let their domain registration expire. It is an avoidable mistake that results in embarrassment not to mention huge expense when you try to get it back. I couldn’t believe it when I read on Adrag that Ogilvy London’s website is now registered to viral ad agency ASABAILEY. To make the slap in the face sting just a little more, Ogilvyís homepage now has the tagline ìIf you understood the modern brand, youíd understand how to protect itî with a link to ASABAILEYís site. Ouch.

It speaks for itself.

Unlike going to the dentist, I kind of like getting an eye exam. I have been to the eye doctor many times before, but today I found the test to be harder than normal. The question I am pondering is whether or not an eye exam is harder for a graphic designer (or any occupation that depends on constantly being critical of what you look at) than the average person.

This is what happened at my exam: I aced the depth perception and color blindness test, but I could have spent much longer looking at the test books. I love finding the numbers in the field of colored dots, and who doesn’t like wearing 3d glasses? Then, I went to the next room to look at the chart with the letters. I knew that if I had a little more time, I could have made out every line, but I felt rushed. I found myself thinking how nice the type looked out of focus. It was like I had my very own Photoshohp blur filter and I could control the blur by squinting and relaxing my eyes.

Recently I stumbled across a controversial wartime advertisement from Wheaties that was printed in comic books (I assume) in the 1940’s. It is shocking that an ad this racist would be printed at all, let alone in a comic book for kids. Continue reading to see this ad.

Is “Jap” racist? That’s a hard line to cross. Certainly with the modern world’s proliferation of political correctness, the term “Japanese” is much less derogatory to the ears. The propaganda (or Design, as we should be allowed to call it) in all countries during the second World War was, by today’s standards, highly racist. But by the standards of the time, it was highly patriotic. The Japanese destroyed a major American military installation, killing 1,177 crewmen. They were not being attacked in Design because of their race. They were being attacked in Design (and in the world) because of their actions.

When I was younger I thought that “Jew” was just as derogatory as “Jap,” especially considering the relevance of both shorthand cultural titles during World War II. As I grew up and grew into the world, I found that wasn’t that case. Jew is what you call Jews. I’ve never spoken with a Japanese person about that name. Maybe the Japanese can call each other “Jap,” but it would be rude for someone else to do so. Either way, I am re-posting this example of WWII American anti-Japanese sentiment (remember, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 are highly-comparable American tragedies) to allow comments. Take that, Hitler.

You may remember I am a Toyota person. Don’t worry, I haven’t changed teams. Actually, my dad worked for General Motors for a while when I was growing up and my ears still perk up when I hear GM mentioned in the news. It has been nothing but bad news lately. Losing market share, cutting 25,000 jobs, and junk bond status have all colored the company recently. When I saw their new commercials proclaiming an “Employee discount for everyone,” I was skeptical. Reading between the lines, I assumed it really meant “We can’t afford to give our employees a discount anymore, and we are passing the savings on to you.” Surely the public wouldn’t be hooked by that promotion. Well, I was wrong. GM just had their best month since 2001, and the employee discount promotion is getting the credit. Good news for GM, I just hope their success doesn’t mean other companies will copy this promotion. I am tired of employee discounts for everybody already. Do you like the commercials? Was it designed better than I think? It is pretty impressive that they can overcome all the negative press with just an advertising campaign.

What if you could project an advertisement onto any surface? Imagine a 7000 watt projector that could bounce logos and images off of buildings, signs, or anything you pointed it at. You could put it in a van and drive around flashing images all over a city. Sound like science fiction? Well, believe it or not, the technology exists, and it is starting to catch on. According to Daniel Lee, Starbucks is the most recent company to employ the technology and they are broadcasting their image all over Chicago. I am sure there are legitimate uses for these projectors, I doubt that strapping them to a van and projecting images on buildings as you drive by would fit into that category. Companies like Kinetic Lighting seem unconcerned, and are promoting a projector that “is easily mounted to the back of a pick-up or van.” They claim to provide “creative agencies with unparalleled branding technology. And that���s translating to happy clients.” If you are tired of the “astronomical billboard advertising fees,” New Wave Development is working on a similar service. For the environmentally conscious, Projected-Ads.com boasts of how “environmentally friendly” their product is.

Well, I have to admit, that this technology sounds pretty cool. Unfortunately, the newness will wear off, and we will be left to deal with the legal, ethical and cultural implication of such technology. Daniel Lee rightly asks, “Is it legal to turn personal property into advertising material without consent? …With the use of projections even competitors advertising space can be converted into opposing messages.” The thought of a Starbucks logo being projected onto a McDonalds billboard is kind of funny, you have to admit. Maybe we can have some fun with it before the lawsuits start flying. Imagine the possibilities. If you could get your hands on one of those projectors, what image would you use, and what would you project it on?

I’ve been flying a lot lately, and because of free services like Google Earth and Google Maps (satellite view), I’ve come to wonder about building-top marketing in the future. Consider that, as time passes, we continue to increase network bandwidth and shorten the amount of time between making a change, and seeing that change published (examples: web sites and direct to plate printing). Currently, you may see some buildings with messages on top. Usually they’re near airports and say something obvious, like the name of the company or use the helipad symbol. Or you might see the name of your city written with white rocks in the hills, or something like the Hollywood sign. But what if satellite images and/or aerial photos will be updated more frequently, and people will use roof-tops for advertising? Consider big convention centers, or hotels that are very spread out. That’s a lot of roof real estate. Viewers would see the large ads while looking up an address near-by. I know that doesn’t sound like a definite ROI, but it might be an option for a company, like a convention center, that wants to put their logo or contact info in noticeable colors on the roof so that people looking up directions for places near-by would see the ad. Will this ever happen? We’ll see.

I ran across this billboard during a recent trip to north-central Iowa. I don’t think there are words that can describe how I feel about its message or its design, so I present it to you as a “moment of Zen” if you will.