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.
No comments:
Post a Comment