08.31
I just read Landor’s press release about the identity they created for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. This is one of the more somber identity assignments imaginable, and I think they’ve done a nice job.
And, for the most part, the press release does a good job of explaining the rationale behind the design (although I was surprised it didn’t mention the blue 11’s similarity to a ‘pause’ icon, which is a potentially interesting message). But one word in the press release rubbed me the wrong way. Here’s the line:
continue reading…
08.27
Instead of blue mountains on a cold beer can, why hasn’t anyone come up with a lid or sleeve for a coffee cup that tells you when it’s no longer so hot that it’ll burn your tongue?
Seriously. Because the sip test is dangerous.
08.25
One of my favorite blogs to check regularly is The Ad Contrarian (thanks for pointing it out, Ewan). As suggested by the name, posts on the blog regularly take a devil’s advocate point of view on popular trends, like Twitter, or the web in general. I’m not sure how I missed it for so long, but I just recently came across a series of posts targeting one of TAC’s favorite gripes: branding.
Before I go further, let me say that part of the reason I enjoy the blog is because I respect the point of view of its author (Bob Hoffman of Hoffman/Lewis). In fact, I often agree with him. While I understand his frustration over “branding”—I’m easily annoyed by misuse and overuse of both the word and the concepts behind it—I did think these posts took aim at a bit too big of a target. As one commenter put it, he may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Anyway, here’s a summary of one of TAC’s posts and my response. You can follow the links below to see a few more of his posts, and you’ll see I’ve commented on those as well. It’s worth reading everyone else’s comments, too (many enthusiastically agree with Bob’s point of view). Would be curious to hear your stance, as well.
continue reading…
08.20
My first reaction to the six logos laid out in an August Orange Coast article, “Logos We ♥,” was that these logos are terrible. But of course it’s just my opinion that these logos suck. I wondered whether there was some objective measure by which I could support my point.
In search of an answer, I first visited a hilarious site, YourLogoMakesMeBarf.com. Appearing on this site doesn’t prove that a logo is bad, but it seems like pretty strong evidence. Looking at the categories on the right-hand side of the page, notice how the barf-worthy logos have started to sort themselves into groups of awfulness. Maybe some of these categories could be considered “do not do’s” for logo design. The easiest to objectively identify are:
continue reading…
08.14
Came across these the other day at Macy’s. Not Neiman Marcus, where I’d expect Godiva to hawk its fine chocolates. Macy’s.
Apparently Godiva has created a sub-brand called Chocoiste, described on the website as “decadence goes mobile.” Indulgence and convenience aren’t two concepts that go together naturally, but it’s a nice combo to strive for. The risk is that mobility will come at the expense of decadence, leaving your brand standing for the wrong idea—or worse yet, nothing at all. While the creation of a sub-brand helps protect the masterbrand from potential failure, “Godiva” is still pretty prominently featured on this packaging.
As is the phrase “MADE FROM DRIED STRAWBERRIES.”
continue reading…
08.12
I’m guessing nothing all that positive, given his reaction to some market research in the first season of Mad Men. As recounted in the online Episode Guide, “Greta hands the report to Don who promptly files it into the trashcan.”
continue reading…
