Music w/ Great Videos

Below are a handful of what I consider to be great music videos; most are visually amazing, some tell a great story and others are just fun. I hope you enjoy them as much as I do.


The Raveonettes - Black + White via pan-dan.



Chase & Status feat. Kano - Against All Odds via Vimeo



Assassins – Guilty via Vimeo



The Wallburds - "Hourglass"via Vimeo



Coeur de Pirate - Comme des enfants via Vimeo

Innovative Ideas

Matthew Waldman of Nooka, a design agency (or lifestyle brand), discusses the importance of understanding your motivation in terms of information architecture, designing to be more intuitive, and expressing core values. I think there are some really insightful ideas here.


2/27/09 Matthew Waldman from CreativeMornings on Vimeo.

Umair Haque is "Director of the Havas Media Lab, a new kind of strategic advisor that helps investors, entrepreneurs, and firms experiment with, craft, and drive radical management, business model, and strategic innovation." It's rather long but a really interesting look at how the economy may be shifting and what types of innovations will be at the forefront of a new type of capitalism.


Umair Haque @ Daytona Sessions vol. 2 - Constructive Capitalism from Daytona Sessions on Vimeo.

Both via swissmiss

The Language of Brands

In a previous post I threw out some ideas about the unique ways in which Millennials interact with brands. Among other things I said, that “[Millennials] are fluent in brands. We know the symbols, their messages, and the communities associated with them.” The basic assumption here being that our culture has adopted the language of brands. And, I thought I should go into more depth about what I think that means.


Our world as we know it is constructed with symbols. The theorist and philosopher Kenneth Burke described human beings as “symbol-using animals.” Or, as he later concedes in his chapter, “Definition of Man,” perhaps more accurately we should add “symbol-making, and symbol-misusing,” as well. From simple mathematics where x represents an unknown quantity to more complex symbols intrinsic to our culture, they are by nature devices of substitution and abbreviation.

These ideas fit well with the conceptualization of memory as an “associative network” of nodes, as described by Kevin Lane Keller. This theory describes how meaning attaches to symbols – explaining that each symbol we encounter has a specific memory node in our brain, and connected to this node, with varying degrees of strength, are other nodes (or sets of nodes) that together contribute to our understanding of the central symbol node. And, Keller argues, branding is about connecting symbols and meaning to products and services. Thus, just like all other symbols, in memory a brand would have a “brand node” with a web of associated nodes linked to it, that in turn add to its meaning.

This begs the question then, with brands as numerous and pervasive as they have become in the 21st century, to what extent do we use this sophisticated symbol set of brands to communicate and create meaning? And further, is this a good or a bad thing?

While I shudder at first to think that Coke and Pepsi may have just as much meaning to me as Starry Night, it seems almost undeniable. And, I have to wonder about the impact of this on culture at large. When Andy Warhol created his Campbell’s Soup series it was said that he elevated “vulgar” pop culture to art. Yet, of this series Warhol said, “I wanted to paint nothing... and the soup can was it.” So was pop-culture art or not then? Did it have value or not? As the Campbell brand was a corporate construction to sell a product and therefore without any "real" meaning behind it - soup is pretty much soup -I'd say he was arguing the latter.

Beyond this, Sarah Nardi asks, “How much of the burden of responsibility are we [the audience] willing to bear? Do we see a soup can or do we want to see a meditation on nihilism?” (Ad Busters Nov/Dec 2008). Are we drowning in a soup of manufactured culture that is at its core meaningless – as Esquire’s famous cover might suggest – or can we see the soup as something of value because regardless it still means something to us?

It seems to me that we are seldom willing to bear the burden of finding meaning, but we are certainly open to being told. With Campbell’s, a meaning that we generally accept has been deliberately constructed for the brand. For many, Campbell Soup does not represent “nothing,” (as perhaps it should?), but something very real, and with very real experiences and emotions attached to it.

Therefore, I would argue that, while fundamentally brands stand for nothing and are without truth (because they were constructed to be facades), today we the consumers are causing this to become less and less true. Because brands are so pervasive, so numerous and their messages so well developed, we are able to attribute real meaning to them and use them as a means of communication. We have taken the ball and we ran with it. That is to say, we have adopted the language of brands, and speak it fluently.

Today, brands are part of our cognitive lexicon. But further, as with media fragmentation, where there might be a TV show, cable channel, magazines etc. all for a very specific subject (i.e. Golf), brand variety and “fragmentation” has provided a rich assortment of brands, each with specific messages and associations. As a result, there are brands that stand for just about everything from establishment to antidisestablishmentarianism! So, you might ask, does this mean there is a brand for me then?

Maybe. When we associate with a brand, we project its associations onto ourselves. And, with multiple brands there is the ability to layer this meaning. As the composers of our image, we consciously and unconsciously choose brand combinations (or layers, or webs of associations) that together contribute to a “more unique” image that expresses our personal identity, shaping how other people perceive us.

Further, because we are actively engaged in using the symbol set of brands to communicate identity, we now also share in the process of creating and shaping the meaning of the brands themselves. With the advent of new media/ social media, constructing meaning has become increasingly a two way process. Because we have communities centered around brands, as their identity evolves so does the brands. Skittle’s most recent stunt might be a perfect example of how brands are increasingly allowing their communities and new media to define them.


There is certainly more to write about this, and even the points I touched on above demand a more thorough evaluation. However, the conclusion I hope to write is about how: what brands have become, the way people use symbols and the advent of technology are all combining to change how we communicate.

My Gen Y Idea...

Ag Age did a piece on its daily online news show 3 Minute Ad Age, titled, "What if Gen Y WANTS to be behaviorally targeted?" I've been kicking the same idea around for a while and was hoping to pursue it when I had a chance - oh well. I guess I still can, it's just not that original anymore.

It's presented well here, and though it probably needs to be tweaked, I hope it's well received overall because it's a good idea.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid1370868150/bctid14770804001

All My Words

via wordle.net

ARG - are we ready for it?

Tonight I came across a great post on Edward Boches’ blog, Creativity_Unbound, about an idea for an interactive, ARG-like campaign to promote a new Discovery Channel show, Most Evil. The video explains far better; but essentially, via an open wi-fi network unsuspecting users will find their browser opens to a stranger’s e-mail account. This stranger, users will learn if they poke about, is a serial killer. After several horrifying minutes the screen fades to an ad for the show, informing users that none of it was real. I gues it'd be like being in one of those Pizza Hut bate and switch commercials except rather than eating subpar pasta with friends you'd probably be alone and afrayed you're going to die.

As I commented on his post, this idea immediately reminded me of two computer games from a few years back with a strikingly similar innovative concept. Both Majestic (2001) and Missing: Since January (2004) – along with its sequel Evidence: The Last Ritual (2006) – expanded game play beyond traditional boundaries to interact with players in their real lives.**

Further, in terms of marketing, the most successful crossover of this concept that I’m familiar with is the ilovebees.com campaign for Halo 2 (Viral with Value).


These are still pretty new ideas and for the most part people have no idea that experiences like this even exist. Moreover, the Discovery campaign, unlike the above mentioned games or Halo 2 campaign, does not give users the choice to enter false reality, but thrusts it upon them. I suppose that is what makes the concept so interesting, but with little to no prior ARG literacy I worry that users might not easily reconcile the experience afterward.

In fact, I think that new media literacy may be one of the biggest problems we face as advertisers as we seek to innovate online. People are not learning and adopting new technology (even when readily available, e.g. Twitter) half as quickly as it continues to grow. As a result, I wonder if we may find ourselves stuck in some odd limbo between old and new technology, attempting to appeal to both early adopters and and old-tech hold outs at the same time. An awkward place to be for sure.

But still, returning to Discovery's potential campaign, I really love the idea. And, it seems that innovation is often about breaking the rules - they just needs to be broken in the right way. In my opinion it's a great concept that, like Majestic and Missing, may be too far ahead of its time to work as well as it deserves to. But, with some minor changes I think it could be a great success today.

Mr. Boches was kind enough to respond to the comment I left on his post (very similar to above), writing: "this execution actually begs the question as to whether it's about the show, the creative idea that advertises it, or the viewers willingness to be part of the experience. Says something about where we'll go and what we'll do in the digital space." I wonder if we'll look back on these games and campaigns in a few years and think this is when things really started to change? I suspect the answer is yes.

---
**
Majestic, the first of the ‘faux reality/thriller subgenre,’ was a bit of a flop, but it was innovative in that it took advantage of the wealth of interactive opportunities presented by the web. Its IGN review states, “A game that relies on all of the unique facets of the Internet, while feeling familiar to anyone who's touched any of today's popular media.” Through e-mail, phone and IM the game presents the player with various puzzles (and clues) that require online research to for necessary information to solve them.

Missing and Evidence (or Missing 2) refined the ideas tried out in Majestic. Throughout the game you are on the trail of a serial killer called "The Phoenix," and game play progresses through frequent e-mails sent to you from your partners and the killer himself. Similarly, puzzle solving requires online research (a task more interesting than it sounds).

Simple Ads that Work

Waiting for a friend at the Red Hat yesterday, while idly sipping my drink and trying to make less obvious that I was sitting alone at a bar, I spaced out watching commercials. When one of my recent favorites came on, Jim Beam’s “the girlfriend,” (sort of an Absolute rip off, but w/e) it hit me that even though I thought it was clever, it didn’t move me to buy the product. So how good was it really?

It could be that I’m a little overexposed to advertisements and thus place a higher value innovation. But, when I began thinking about ads that have really 'worked' on me, moving me to buy a product, in most cases they were simple, well-constructed spots with a straightforward message.

A few simple favorites:

The old Snickers campaign, “Not going anywhere for a while... grab a Snickers,” worked on me like a charm. It demonstrated that a Snickers Bar could be a filling snack rather than just another candy. The message reworked the brand’s attributes and benefits; no longer a sweet sensation, it was now an accessible, substantial food. And, this encapsulated the selling idea: never feel hungry with Snickers (an idea still present in their ads today). Pretty soon it became the first thing I reached for when I was on the go.

The Burger King “Whopper Freak Out” spots had me craving the flam broiled burger for a week. Classic reverse psychology, and I gave right in. After seeing the ad for the first time I distinctly remember turning to a friend and saying, “Woah, I really want that, right now.” My dream is to one day make a commercial that does that.

Hall’s new campaign, “a deep breath of fresh air,” is very similar to the Snickers campaign in that it changes the products benefit - making cough drops relevant beyond the context of a cold. I bit. Last week I grabbed a pack before getting on the train, thinking about the commercial as I swiped my debit card. There was no trick, the ad simply convinced me to buy them.

Sham Wow! Don't even get me started on this spot, woah. I still almost dive for my phone when I see it. Two minutes of glorious, mind blowing demonstrations; "did you see how it got the cola off that carpet!" I yelled into the living room when I heard the ad come on from across the apartment. But, then again, I have a soft spot for low budget infomercials - "Beware of imitators!" love it.