Standing on the RIM of greatness
Your brand is your user experience
Are you obsessed with Pinterest?
Big Orange Valentines
0 Comments
Best of 2011
The Big Orange Slide marched brazenly into its terrible twos this year, leaving a trail of thoughtful commentary in its wake. We cross into 2012 with new content formats (of the video and infographic type) and provocative guest posts (by the likes of R Blank and Luke Sullivan.) Hopefully you’ve enjoyed reading our posts as much as we’ve enjoyed producing them.
If there’s anything you would like to see more of in the coming year, we’d like to hear it. At the very least, we’ll nod and smile, secretly pretending that we had been thinking of doing them all along.
So in no particular order, we present to you some of our notable posts of 2011.
[VIDEO] What makes a good brief? – by Jon Finkelstein
March 19, 2011
The Slide’s first video post explores some reflections on what makes a great briefing. A post that gained us 85 trolls and some otherwise great comments.
Are award shows dead? Or am I, after writing this? -by Dave Crichton
June 23, 2011
One of Grip’s founding partners provides a provocative counterpoint to the award show circuit.
Luke Sullivan on Self-publishing – Guest post by Luke Sullivan
September 12, 2011
The author of the classic “Hey Whipple” shares some insights into his experiences with self-publishing his newest book.
Getting schooled on School – by Julia Morra
September 7, 2011
Julia started out her year as an intern, and rounds it out as an Art Director. Here, she offers advice to those heading into Ad school.
[INFOGRAPHIC] The Anatomy of an Agency - by Trevor Gourley & Julia Morra
October 24, 2011
Recently listed as #4 on Taxi Design’s “Top 10 Most Popular Infographics of 2011,” this piece is a cheeky – and eerily accurate? – depiction of the “species” that make up an agency.
Brand new narratives – by Joel Derksen
October 18, 2011
A stirring call-to-arms on the importance of telling a proper brand story.
iMemoriam – by Leilah Ambrose
October 6, 2011
Steve Jobs is dead. Long live the Apple generation.
Why “brand?” – by Ken Easson
November 9, 2011
Do we dare reassess the relevance of the term “branding”? We do!
Merry Amex-mas (Augmented Fun From Down Un)
Here’s a nice little present from American Express in Australia. Every American Express cardholder was sent a “Talking Tag” which they could include with any of their gifts. Cleverly, the tag directs them to a site for an augmented reality experience customized (somewhat) just for them.
Using your webcam to scan the card, lips appear telling whether the gift’s recipient has been naughty or nice. Choosing from eight different voices ranging from a surly “scot” to “nanna,” they will get a gift message that’s sure to conjure a smile.
Interested in downloading your own set of tags? You can choose and print them out here.
Full disclosure, the interface is a little slow, the messages a little uninspired and the voice stereotypes a bit tired. But hey, it’s Christmas.
What is the worst marketing buzzword out there?
We all hate them, still we use them. Instead of agreeing with people, we’re “aligned” or “on the same page.” When meetings get derailed, we “take that conversation offline.” Yet when’s the last time you “circled back” with friends or family? It’s like the minute the elevator doors open at 9 am, our vocabulary takes a subconscious leap into a black abyss of buzzwords.
According to a survey on Meeting Boy, the most hated buzzword is “out of the box.” Is it? Do you agree? In the process of using buzzwords, are we enhancing our perceived competency, or ironically stamping it out?
Jack of all trades? Or master of one?
Specialization versus generalization is a common theme for discussion in the creative community. The idea of the “jack of all trades” and the honed, perfection-driven “master of the art” are compelling figures. Both are defined in relationship to the quality of goods produced. However, if we look exclusively at craftsmanship, there is a bias built into the idiom “jack of all trades…” — “… master of none.” That said, are they still valid archetypes?
If we were to look to our own industry, we are less and less concerned with the genesis of the talent we pull from. We are increasingly seeing film directors directing ads, designers launching their own products, and ad agencies offering “full service” across multiple media. It seems that there is more going on than just craftsmanship.
Two new elements have taken prominence in the generation of content: collaboration and curiosity.
Creatives can – and are expected to – collaborate more. The scale and depth of projects has necessitated multi-discipline teams working together. Collaboration is especially good at accentuating strengths of individuals, while downplaying weaknesses. For example, a designer who is not strong at motion graphics can collaborate with someone who is, ensuring a strong product that reflects an extra demension of expertise.
The second element is innate curiosity. Even if a creative is focused on specialization in one area, a personal methodology of asking questions, being curious, exploring and researching, can translate into success in many different mediums and ventures. Collaborative curiosity is also educational for both “specialists.” They learn what to look for. They learn how to “talk the talk,” which facilitates future collaboration.
Skills and tools are a shifting terrain, and to an extent pure craftsmanship is a table stake. Being a specialist or a generalist in craft and focus can be a blessing or a curse, depending on who you talk to.
However, the willingness to be curious and collaborative are really the skills we should be paying attention to.
People are so fake
Do you hear that? It’s the gentle hum of SkyNet going online. The Terminator films told us it would happen on April 19, 2011 — but they were off by about 20 months. But what is it that seems to be spelling the death knell of humanity? Is it engineers replaced by robots? Taxi drivers made obsolete by self-aware automobiles? No, it’s bikinis. Specifically H&M’s bikinis, which are now modeled by entirely digital bodies. If the raison d’être of these beautiful people can be usurped by our evil, computer generated overlords, than what chances do us uggos stand?
H&M argues that these digitized bodies show of their products better than a human body can. This approach lead to the maybe-purposeful-maybe-accidental omission of an entire model’s face from an H&M catalogue. It’s difficult to blame H&M though, as this seems to be the natural evolution of the photoshopped covergirl.
So how do these make you feel? Expendable? Creeped out? Robut-lustful?
Comment and let us know.
Inking a deal
Diehard fanboi or extreme couponer? When it comes to corporate logo tattoos, there are two distinct markets. There are those who do it out of love and loyalty for a brand, and those who do it for (you guessed it) cold hard cash.
If you fall into the later category, today is your lucky day. Ecko is currently running a promo called “Branded for Life.” Simply get their iconic rhino or shears tattooed on your body and you’ll enjoy 20% off for life when you flash your Ecko ink at the checkout.
Makes you wonder if the participants in this promo would be less willing to do it if they had to get the words “Shop Ecko” tattooed on their bodies instead? Do the majority of them even think of this as advertising?
A more extreme example is Karolyne Smith. Does the name ring a bell? Perhaps you’d recognize her if you saw her face. That’s because it has goldenpalace.com tattooed across her forehead. Prime real estate that went for the lofty price of $15,000.
And she’s not the only one. Brent Moffatt did it too.
Then again, these two actually sold the ad space on their heads to the highest bidder on eBay. No brand loyalty required. A pretty solid way to make a quick chunk of change if you ask me. That being said, you won’t be finding my forehead up for auction anytime soon, unless it comes with a lifetime supply of Vichy’s Dermablend.
User-generated “commertentce”
I’m a huge fan (and avid purchaser) of Apple’s Apps. And at about 2.4 billion in sales a year, I’m clearly not alone. Apps are fun, useful, on-demand. There’s something for everyone. What I do find surprising, however, is that for such a massive economy, there is still a cottage feel. Unlike any other “manufacturing” model I know of, there is an incredible social element to the App experience. Not just between users. But between users and the developers.
I recently experienced this particular aspect of the App experience second-hand, when my Community Soul Project band-mate Terry Donnelly downloaded Set List Maker from the App store. I won’t bore you with all its functionality. Suffice it to say, if you’re in a band, you want this app. It’s crazy powerful and eliminates the need for a 10lb binder filled with music charts. Terry lovingly itemized its virtues and then got pretty much everyone in the band using it. After a few weeks of using it, he found some opportunities for improvement.
This is where Terry took consumer generated reviews (content) to the next level. Rather than simply posting his comments on the app store page, he contacted the developer directly with some suggestions. To Terry’s surprise, the developer responded right away. After a few email exchanges, they came up with a plan for the next two updates which included most of Terry’s ideas; including ways for the developer to make additional revenue. Terry gets a better app, the developer makes more money. Everybody wins. This is where user-generated content meets commerce: call it the dawn of “Commertentce”.
I think there is an opportunity for bigger brands to take a page from Arlo Leach (the creator of Set List Maker). Good things come from really listening to your consumers. A great place to start is through social channels (like your Facebook wall) and using platforms like Sysmos. Listen, learn, and by Zeus, please respond. Not every consumer idea is going to be a winner. But the act of sharing ideas inevitably comes from a place of brand love.
When consumer-generated content spurs on new levels of engagement and commerce, the benefits increase exponentially. It requires time, patience, and more than a dose of humility. But it’s definitely worth it, I think.
Have you seen any examples of this sort of idea economy? What are your thoughts?
Cause and effect
It’s time to answer that eternal question – which came first, the marketing campaign or the charitable cause?
‘Tis not always clear, is it? Is it? Corporate do-goodery has long been part of a broader strategy for many brands, but it is increasingly becoming “the” strategy. (Many examples abound, which I shall not list here because I’m too lazy.) If one were to examine this (not so recent) phenomenon cynically, one would conclude that brands are supporting causes not for the cause itself but rather for how this “cause-supporting” positively reflects on their brand. But does that matter? Aren’t millions of dollars being made available to charities, eco-groups, etc., to assist in their help-the-planet nice-making? I dunno. But I will say this – clearly there are a lot of people in focus groups declaring they’d prefer to make their purchases from a company that has a charitable presence.
Which in turn begs the real question: when the hell did everyone become so bloody nice?
