You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'brands' tag.
Apple is letting go of their famous “Get a Mac” campaign, which featured Justin Long and John Hodgman in a verbal battle (Mac vs. PC).

I must admit that I always enjoyed the commercials because they were often spot on about the problems that a PC would have, and a Mac didn’t. It was a clever and quiet way of introducing the Mac to ‘regular’ people that doesn’t really know what a Macintosh is all about. People are now speculating about what’s next in the Apple era of advertising. The actual ‘Get a Mac’ campaign and all the TV ads has been removed from the Apple website, and now there’s only facts and reasons about the world of Macs and why you should get one.
So, what’s next? The problem hereafter for Apple will not be to tell people how good they really are – it will be to create a new, successful, interesting and fun campaign that can bring the essence of the brand further into the future. In two weeks Apple and Steve Jobs will open this years ‘Apple Worldwide Developers Conference’ in San Francisco, which will probably reveal many interesting stories. That tells me that we shouldn’t have to wait too long before the new introduction of Mac takes place. The question is; how creative will they be? In the meantime, you can check out this mash-up clip from all the ‘Get a Mac’ videos we’ve been seeing throughout the years. Enjoy!
Since everyone else seems to be talking about this spot, I figured I’d throw my two cents in. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s simple…Tiger stares into camera. Tiger’s dead father provides the voiceover. Cameras flash. Simple.
Most of the comments I’m seeing are critical, to say the least. Take this New York Times article:
“Did you learn anything?” Earl Woods asks. A valuable question, and one that his son has attempted to answer in his no-questions news conference in February; his brief interviews with ESPN and the Golf Channel last month; and his pre-Masters news conference on Monday.
But the answer to the father’s question appears to be that serial philandering and addiction rehab can be positioned as a commodity — and that you can roll it out in phases leading to the Nike amendment to the 12 steps: a TV commercial.
Personally, I like the spot. It’s an apology, a glimpse into Tiger’s conscience, and a return to the spotlight all rolled into one. When I read the criticism, I have to wonder what people expected. Short of keeping one of their marquee endorsers on the bench, or cutting him loose altogether, this was the only thing Nike could do.
Nike frames him as the fallen hero. Anything else would have been an outrage.
Most people don’t have a clue what goes into designing a logo, let alone a complex identity system. Pentagram’s Paula Scher has written this little essay that takes on the common gripes and misunderstandings about identity design, specifically, What They Don’t Teach You About Identity Design in Design Schools.
For what it’s worth, this is my favorite passage…
I never knew a designer that got hundreds of thousands of dollars to design a logo. Mostly, designers get paid to negotiate the difficult terrain of individual egos, expectations, tastes, and aspirations of various individuals in an organization or corporation, against business needs, and constraints of the marketplace. This is a process that can take a year or more. Getting a large, diverse group of people to agree on a single new methodology for all of their corporate communications means the designer has to be a strategist, psychiatrist, diplomat, showman, and even a Svengali. The complicated process is worth money. That’s what clients pay for. The process, usually a series of endless presentations and refinements, persuasions and proofs, results, hopefully, in an accepted identity design.

I’m not going to wax philosophical about Diesel’s new “Be Stupid” campaign. I’ll let you all decide for yourselves.
I’l just say that once you get past the initial, well, stupidity of it all, it’s actually kind of refreshing. Isn’t the proposition being made here essentially what every trendy “lifestyle brand” asks of its consumer – to eschew rational thinking and do what they feel. I mean, there’s no purely logical, rational reason to buy $150 jeans. You buy they because you just want them.
For a second opinion, here’s Ken Carbone’s take from Fast Company.
The other night I quickly read Michael Pollan’s new book(let) Food Rules. It’s a quick, easy reminder that we as people should be eating things that look, feel, and act like food. On paper, these rules make sense but today I read an article that really brought the idea of eating real food to life for me (check the great pictures out here).
The thing about Pollan’s rules are that they’re all so simple, they’re easy to overlook but incredibly powerful at the same time. I bring it up because I also read and hear a lot of concern over the consumer. Will they begin to spend again? What will they buy?
Looking at the food pictures from Good Blog I realized, the answer is easy to overlook and powerful. Brands should keep it simple. Consumers don’t necessarily need every variety and innovation known to man. They really want stuff that works well for a reasonable price. So many products don’t live up to this idea while striving to be lower calorie or greener or new and improved.
If you haven’t checked it out, Food Rules is a great, short read (under an hour) and has some good lessons that could be applied to the world of advertising, branding, and product development in addition to eating.




