homophone rant

A thought popped into my head the other day (go figure).  

Looking at the world and living life, I look for intriguing, interesting and profoundly inspiring ideas.  After all, these ideas not only make me more informed, but they lead ultimately to better advertising.  My noteworthy thought was not this.  No.  My noteworthy thought was this:

I look for the good, and bypass the bad.  Simply because it's not good.

Let me explain.  While catching up on my blogs this morning, I stopped to think:  With thoughts spanning from consumer insights on hybrid cars to the technologically innovative evolution of the broom, very rarely do I extend a "negative" comment into a discussion.  In other words, I typically make a face, make a mental note (occasionally tell a friend) and then write it off.  I quickly fixate on the good, thinking about it for hours/days/etc . . . but then dismiss the bad even more quickly.  Giddily inspired vs. ignorantly unsatisfied.  

In an interesting world, I look beyond that which I find simply uninteresting. 

 That's not good.  In two ways.  

My mind immediately backtracked to recover a nearly traumatic ad/brand experience and dissect it for my own sanity.  As a planner, I would hope to be able to not only think forward in advertising development, but also to look at the final product and work backwards through the same project.  After all, if there's something 'wrong' with it at the end, there could be a number of issues that happened along the way.  

Then again, it's completely subjective I suppose.  And so it goes . . .

While racking my brain earlier, I thought of something that did not bode well with me:  the Syracuse University campaign for . . . well, itself.  Here's the logo/slogan:

This irked me when I first saw it last year.  Although I had no real issue with the graphic elements of the campaign per se (and I fully admit that I bring anything but an unbiased perspective to the table), having such a brand identity as the new face of the school both to higher-ups and to . . . um, I suppose you would call perspective students 'lower-downs' . . . regardless, it was too off-course.

The objective of the campaign -- which cost the university approximately several hundred student's tuition (if we're going to measure by the unit of 'student tuition') -- was to raise the endowment and to make ourselves stand out in the American university community.

Well . . . I suppose we stand out, I but wouldn't necessarily say that it's in a good way.

As a planner, I find the wording to be a bit confusing.  In the advertising world, insights do not in fact incite change.  They are a catalyst for that change, yes.  But if someone was sitting at a table and I threw an insight in front of them, I can guarantee you that change would not happen.  Or rather, it would not 'incite' change.  There's something else involved.  Insights gained by scholarship are part of the puzzle, but I think the university needs to take a closer look at how to communicate the other puzzle pieces, too.  Having a set of homophones blown up to gargantuan proportions in various shades of orange won't necessarily do the trick.  There's something more -- something's missing from the puzzle.

The objective was clear.  The strategy was there.  But something went awry in the execution.  

Thank you, NBC.

I found the full link to the skit de jour. Enjoy.

GarageBand for 3-year-olds

This development from the UC Berkeley tech kids is intriguingly simple yet systemically complicated, no doubt.

It brings a new meaning to the phrase "sweet music."

Would this one be called "Boobie Doobie"?

When I have that unique hankering for ice cream, my first thought used to be "strawberry," but after living near a Ben & Jerry's this summer, the thought evolved into "Chunky Monkey in a waffle cup."  It's an odd transition, yet one that I'm completely comfortable with.

The word iconic is used, overused and abused while talking about brands; however, I have to bring myself to argue there are a few brands that fall into that category.  Ben & Jerry's is certainly one of them -- the product has a unique hold over people, and thus their brand is the muse of liberal clarity and entrepreneurial relief.  

PETA recently saw this unique energy around the ice cream brand as well.  A recent request that certainly falls into the organization's "oh, yes . . .  we went there" category of requests, is lingering in my head:  they submitted a proposal to have all cow's milk be replaced by human milk in all Ben & Jerry's flavors.  

Just to clarify, we're talking about breast milk, correct?  That leaves a sour taste in my mouth.  

Ben & Jerry's decided not to follow through with such action, unfortunately.  You can read all about it here.  The company did their research (or at least presented a facade of doing their research) for PETA's recommendation, and claimed that it would not functionally make sense at this point in time -- there are just too many substantial differences between how they create the magical ice cream now (with milk from a cow's utter, to clarify) and a transition to the "boobie doobie" of the future (breast milk ice cream).   

This naturally poses a few questions, I think:  

• How would the brand image change among the lighthearted audience it has captured in recent years after hypothetically switching to human milk as an ingredient?
  
• Would this raise other objections in consumers' minds, as they might weigh the difference between feeding your teenagers breast milk in ice cream and feeding your teenagers breast milk?  
  
• The breast milk production is no doubt relatively new and European, but in an American market, what would happen to the brand?
  

and most importantly

• Would consumers have the opportunity to make their "own" ice cream?  
  

This is all fun to think about, but Ben & Jerry's is much more fun to eat than to think about.  Keep it fun.  I anxiously wait for the next introduction into the flavor library.  

Breast milk -- right now -- is not fun.  It's scary.

I Am(Ex) Surprised.

Find more videos like this on AdGabber


Celebrity cameos / endorsements / etc have always irked me -- they're not bad, per se, but I feel that many brands use them to say something new to consumers. Something that simply wasn't being said through other means, whether it be through words, pictures or other communicative tool.  It creates confusion instead of consistency of message.  Even if the celebrity pick is nice personification, the celeb's success seems sometimes short-lived during the brand's lifespan.

This spot? 

Love it. Why? It throws two [well-known, mind you] celebrities into the mix. Tina and Martin actually stand for something, especially when shown during the Emmies -- they represent the pinnacle of meaning in the TV/film business. 

But what makes it genuinely fantastic is the concept of "good advice" is exhibited through a back-and-forth with these two. That's it. They bring other names, like Leo D'Cap, into the conversation but only to sprinkle humor on top.  

Genuine travel advice, as we should learn from the comedic, dramatic and amazing authorities of show biz, is based on trust.  These celebs have done work for AmEx previously, which differentiates the spot from otherwise desperate attempts to bring a famous face onboard. 

We trust these people. We trust our intuitive knowledge of humor. And now we trust AmEx. 

I stand corrected.  Make the check out to cash.

Stories

Please watch.  His appreciation for other people and their stories of hopeful or actual happiness ignites tremendous inspiration.

Cheers.

Hello, world.

Hey, everyone.  Here's the first entry -- the most cliche experience that a blogger can write about, much less experience.  

So I'll be posting a video and pointing you in the direction of my old posts for reference purposes only. Check these out (in reverse order): 

My old blog.

That's it.  Cheers, all.