CULTUREMAKING

(Urban) park life

London folk might recall last summer when Trafalgar Square was temporarily transformed into an ‘urban park’ as part of Visit London's campaign to encourage more green spaces in city areas.  The result looked and felt very refreshing ...

[IMAGE VIA BBC]

So is this just another so-called ethical trend?  Whilst more green spaces in urban areas suggests the potential for improved air quality, at best some people may view this more as a bold art installation and at worst another example of greenwashing.  Sideskipping a thorough discussion of the greenwashing debate here, from an aesthetic perspective I like the fusion of the urban with the rustic and rural and have been noticing an increasing number of projects playing with this idea.

Adidas for example have been directly inspired by the guerrilla gardening movement for their Grün campaign (interestingly guerrilla gardening has actually been around since biblical times in one form or another, but I won’t digress – you can find more background here).  On the one hand, Grün is a whole range of recyclable sportswear products (eco substance box ticked) … 

[IMAGES VIA ADIDAS ORGINALS]

Then last month it was translated into an appealing merchandising thematic at their Adidas Original stores to bring an air of naturalness to the fixtures and displays …

To bring the campaign to life further Adidas also collaborated with Dazed & Confused Magazine.  I popped along to the opening of the photo exhibition on Old Street a few weeks back and was rather impressed by what I saw …

The exhibition was energised by an appealing combination of electro music and free drinks and the action spilled out onto the streets very quickly …

What I like about this campaign is the way that it was truly lived and successfully executed through multiple touchpoints.  From a brand perspective guerrilla gardening—with all its quasi-rebellious (grass) roots and political undertones—also chimes nicely with the Adidas ‘Impossible is nothing’ philosophy.

Within architecture, there’s also a number of interesting urban eco developments underway including New York’s renovation of High Line (defunct since 1980) …

 

[IMAGE VIA THE HIGHLINE]

Fraser Braodway’s vision for Sydney – due for completion by 2030 …

[IMAGE VIA INHABITAT]

And Arup’s mission to transform Dongtan, China into an eco-city, with completion phased across 2010-2050.

[IMAGE VIA WORLD ARCHITECTURE NEWS]

Whilst the greenwashing debate will inevitably continue—where the eco credentials of public and private projects will rightfully come under increasing scrutiny—I for one will be looking forward to the prospect of taking a nice leisurely stroll through the world's urban parks.

Culturemaker: William Ford Gibson

 

[IMAGE VIA CLR]

Following on from my second to last post, I’ve decided to ramble on about another culturemaker, which I’m hoping to become a (relatively!) regular feature of this blog.  A culturemaker being someone that has shaped or influenced culture in a rather significant, often visible, way; be it through an idea, theory, act, event, production, object or design of some sort.  So, without further delay, I’d like to turn to the science fiction genre, and specifically to American-Canadian novelist William Gibson (b. 1948)—one of the leading exponents of cyberpunk.

Gibson is best known in trends or marketing circles for his widely, perhaps even overly quoted maxim: "The future’s already here, it’s just not evenly distributed yet" [1].  However, there’s far more to Gibson’s sci-fi literary canon than a sweet justification to hire the coolhunting brigade.  Gibson has also played an inspirational role in making ‘future culture’ accessible to sci-fi geeks, filmmakers, designers and beyond—as well as adding an air of anticipation and excitement to trend pitches, briefings and yet another trends book!

So, please allow me to play my get out jail free card by saying that this is merely a tribute, call to action, reminder, teaser even—depending on which happens to apply—to some retrospective insights from the cyber-dude himself. Needless to say the full, official, Gibson historiography will be written in the future by cyborg archaeologists far more equipped for the task than I—ironically inspired by one of his own novels of course!

Digital Identities

Lets start in an obvious place.  The Internet.  The Internet has a kind-of awkward piecemeal history; one often neglecting Gibson who deserves much credit for coining ‘cyberspace’ in Neuromancer [2], and conceptually anticipating its form and role in the modern day.  Faris observed the distribution of identity not so long ago, whilst a similar idea has also received David’s trademark graphic design treatment to enhance its viral propensity.  Check out this precursory quote then―from Gibson’s short story Johnny Mnemonic [3]—that dates back to good ol’ 1985 (I’m sure the Back to the Future connection is just pure coincidence):

It's impossible to move, to live, to operate at any level without leaving traces, bits, seemingly meaningless fragments of personal information.

Yes, Google your name and providing it’s not John Smith (or similar), I’m sure you’ll soon be reacquainted with some cheesy restaurant review that you submitted in 2001.  Or alternatively, you might just find that Linked In has befriended you without the slightest means of permission. 

What is more, with web 3.0 rumours brewing, Gibson’s “It seems as though the Net itself has become conscious,” [4] might not be too far away.  But if not, don’t get too worried about it, after all, “The Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it” [5].

Changing the model?

Advertising and branding are increasingly coming under fire: or at least, somehow, they seem to be simultaneously increasing and diminishing in importance.  In any Case(y)—sorry, poor Gibson joke—his point that: “far more creativity, today, goes into the marketing of products than into the products themselves” probably helps explain marketers' retreat to productopia.

Not only that, but in a William & Gibson ad agency, rebranding to an ideas agency doesn’t quite cut the mustard:

I want to make the public aware of something they don’t quite yet know that they know—or have them feel that way.  Because they’ll move on that, do you understand?  They’ll think they’ve thought of it first.  It’s about transferring information, but at the same time about a certain lack of specificity [6].

Re-imagining, re-inventing, re-mixing, re-stating, re-wording, stealing etc. etc.

It’s as though the creative process is no longer continued within one individual skull, if indeed it ever was.  Everything, today, is to some extent the reflection of something else [6].

Okay, so Gibson was hardly the first guy to note this idea—the BBB brothers (Barthes, Bakhtin, Baudrillard) had all cottoned onto something similar years before—, but Gibson’s cultural remix really nails it for me:

This stuff is simulacra of simulacra of simulacra.  A diluted tincture of Ralph Lauren, who had himself diluted the glory days of Brooks Brothers, who themselves had stepped on the product of Jermyn Street and Savile Row, flavouring their ready-to-wear with liberal lashings of polo kit and regimental stripes.  But Tommy surely is the null point, the black hole.  There must be some Tommy Hilfiger event horizon, beyond which it is impossible to be more derivative, more removed from the source, more derived of soul [6].

I have to agree you know.  Everything was going just fine before Tommy joined the cultural (re)production line …

History

Again treading heavily in philosophical waters, there’s more than a dash of Nietzschean and Foucauldian genealogy in Gibson’s:

I only know that the one constant in history is change: the past changes.  Our version of the past will interest the future to about the extent we’re interested in whatever past the Victorians believed in [6].

Yep, Gibson knows his history, and equally the importance of always historicising:

When I began to write fiction that I knew would be published as science fiction, part of what I brought to it was the critical knowledge that science fiction was always about the period in which it was written. '1984' is really about 1948. It can't really be understood outside the historical context of 1948 [7].

To the extent that, arguably, “one day we’ll need archaeologists to help us guess the original storylines of even classic films!" [6]. 

And when you get intellectual uberweights like Fredric Jameson [8] analysing your stories, I guess you know you know you’re doing something right! 

Ethnopunk

It appears this word already has a meaning, but I’m all for polysemy and multivocality! Gibson’s acute observations and depictions of urban culture add a further layer of appeal to his stories.  This one particularly resonated with me personally: 

Soho on a Monday morning has its own peculiar energy.  She wants to tap into that for a few minutes [6].

The transformation of object meanings, vis-à-vis social action, also finds a home in Gibson’s Burning Chrome [9], where “the street finds its own uses for things.”

Future

It seems only right to end with the future, and a slightly more modest take on Gibson’s creative futuristic exuberance:

Dreaming in public is an important part of our job description, as science writers, but there are bad dreams as well as good dreams. We're dreamers, you see, but we're also realists, of a sort [10].

And just to put rumours to rest:

I've had a growing frustration, particularly when I would go out and do book tours and interviews. I got frustrated with people asking me, 'How do you know what the future is going to be like?' And I'd always say, 'I don't' [10].

A-ha!

Refs

[1] Interview on NPR’s ‘Talk of the Nation,’ 30 November, 1999
[2] Neuromancer, 1984
[3] Johnny Mnemonic (Omni, 1981)
[4] Time Magazine, 19th August, 1996
[5] New York Times, 14th July,1996
[6] Pattern Recognition, 2003
[7] Special to CNN, 4th Feb, 2003
[8] Archaeologies of the Future (Fredric Jameson, 2007)
[9] Burning Chrome, 1981
[10] National Academy of Sciences Convocation on Technology and Education, 10th May, 1993

Text messages ... for real

Even as a marketing-type fella, I find it hard to comprehend how we're exposed to thousands upon thousands of messages a day (can't recall the exact figure).  In any case, here's a modest four that popped up in my world the day - from New York onto Chicago ...

Culturemaker: Antoni Gaudí i Cornet

   

[IMAGE VIA WIKIMEDIA]

For those of you who have paid even a passing visit to Barcelona, I suspect the genius of architect Antoni Gaudí needs no introduction.

For those in waiting, Gaudí graced Barcelona with some of the greatest architectural designs ever conceived up until his death in 1926.  And as with so many genius types, the true extent of his achievements was not properly recognised until sometime after.

Gaudí’s oeuvre is considered to be the finest exemplar of Catalan Modernisme: a cultural movement roughly dated between 1896-1911 that embraced more ornate and decorate forms of design.  More specifically our friend Wikipedia notes that ...

It is characterized by the predominance of the curve over the straight line, by rich decoration and detail, by the frequent use of vegetal and other organic motifs, the taste for asymmetry, a refined aestheticism, and the dynamic shapes. 

Interestingly, Gaudí believed that differences in architecture were caused more by culture, society, politics and religion than aesthetics per se.

Gaudí was also deeply fascinated by nature, creatively capturing both environmental and human forms within his designs.  In his own words ...

Originality consists of returning to the origin. Thus, originality means returning, through one's resources, to the simplicity of the early solutions.

And again ...

Everything comes from the great book of nature.

Gaudí was also an innovator par excellence, incorporating ground-breaking ventilation systems within his designs a good thirty years before they gained mainstream acceptance.  Further buttressing his nature-loving credentials, Gaudí was even an early precursor to the recent wave of eco-architects—using and reusing local materials wherever possible.

So, here’s a selection of some of my favourite works.  I’ve used a combination of personal photograph’s, random postcards and extracts from Gaudí: The Entire Works to try and do justice to the sheer brilliance of his designs.  Casa Batlló is my personal favourite, with its nod to surrealism, and admired by a certain Salvador Dalí.

The chimneys to Palau Güell

Arches of the cloister at the Theresan College

Roof of the porter’s pavilion at Park Grüell

The Winding Bench at Park Grüell

The façade of Casa Batlló

Private staircase at Casa Batlló

The skylight at Casa Batlló

The chimney at Casa Batlló

The attic at Casa Batlló

The roof of Casa Batlló

The nativity façade of the Sagrada Familia

The columns of the Sagrada Familia

The pinnacle of the Sagrada Familia

The Tipping Point's metaphorical windfall

 

[IMAGE VIA THERESE FLANAGAN]

Several years ago Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point became essential reading for the marketing intelligentsia.

As in, if you didn’t have a crumpled copy leisurely positioned on your desk, you were like … one strange marketing dude, or just better off getting a career in finance or something (okay, okay, I exaggerate ...). 

Needless to say though, it’s key principles require no repetition here - but please feel free to nip off and sneak a top-line refresher here and here - providing you come back.

Since then Gladwell’s core thesis has sustained a few jabs and body shots from within the blogosphere (see here and here for example), but overall its basic tenets have stayed pretty much intact and continue to remain important axioms for viral marketing efforts and such like.

Rather than getting all technical with the idea itself, the question I would like to propose here is a rather simple one. Well, sort of.

To what extent is the success of the Tipping Point down to being an absolutely brilliant metaphor that people can instantly grasp and relate to vs being a completely robust theory that holds immense practical value for marketers?

This is not to suggest that Gladwell fails on the latter, only that the former is possibly even more accountable for the book’s extraordinary success. 

Once again, I find myself (re)turning to this old chestnut on representation (I think I'm alone in my enthusiasm, but heh ...), where the allure of the metaphor is so appealing that it effectively renders the theory 'correct' simply by virtue of popular reference and usage.  That is to say, the "Tipping Point", as metaphor, has become so deeply ingrained in everyday marketing parlance that the Gladwellian explanation (which is only one of many possible ways of explaining the Tipping Point phenomenon) almost becomes a given.  But whether 'right' or 'wrong', it makes Gladwell no less of a marketing genius, that's for sure!

In fact, such has been the sheer reverberation of the Tipping Point's Tipping Point (sorry), that smugly unleashing this killer metaphor in workshops/meetings is now turning into one of those clichéd moments that’s rivaling the 'USP' and 'emotional connection' for top spot on the prestigious marketer buzzword chart.

Of course, the eco-nista's are lapping it up too now (and who can blame them), but when The Sun starts talking about the Climatic Tipping Point, you have to wonder whether it's almost too sticky for its own good!  Or at least, I very much doubt that everyone who's using the metaphor has read the book and wholeheartedly endorses the theory.  But does it really matter?  In short, tough if it does!

So, what’s the crux of the post? 

Metaphors.  They rock n roll n sell ... so fire at will!

After all, when best-selling economists start resorting to uncharacteristically freaky behaviour, and generally favouring long tails over scientific manuscripts, you know there’s something fishy going on, even if their myopic lens might convince us otherwise! ;)

Oh, and metaphorical re-mixing and scratching is especially encouraged here at Culturemaking, but then I guess you already knew that.

A magazine comeb(l)ack

Once upon a time there used to be a thing called a magazine ... yes, you might remember it!

As good as some news-sites and blogs are, perhaps the trusty magazine isn’t out for the count just yet.

One of the finer specimens that I’ve come across recently is Esquire’s ‘Big Black Book 2007’ on US import, which is packed to the brim with great style without the kind of pretentious photography that can leave the all-important clothes/products so obscured these days.

And what's interesting, is that whilst media 2.0 goes increasingly reader-centric, it would appear that the fading men’s lifestyle magazine is staging somewhat of an advisory-style comeback.  But whereas in the eighties it was all about embracing prescriptive looks, codes, rules etc. all rather literally, its 2007 reprise comes with an ironic knowing wink.

So here are 10 law-like reasons on why any aspiring neo-yuppie should buy a copy - or risk expulsion from ‘high society’ forthwith! ;)

1. You get a ‘black book’ for the price of a magazine

2. It’s not actually black, it’s red!

3. It’s officially ‘The Style Manual for Successful Men’ – it says so on the front cover.  You want to be successful, right?

4. Find out ‘The Essentials: The most vital and stylish possessions a man can own [that] are some of the ones that help him enjoy life’

5. Familiarise yourself with ‘The New Authentics: four modern masters [that] look to the past and fuse time-honoured techniques with traditional cloths for results that look surprisingly contemporary’

6. The suit is shrinking.  Find out why

7. An interesting essay on ‘The Long Road – now that luxury is ubiquitous, it takes special effort to create – and obtain – something truly special’

8. A nice overview of ‘The Bespoke Life – the unique experiences, the extraordinary objects, and the singular luxuries of a customized world,’ including the suit, the shirt, the shoes and the vacation. 

9. A brilliant section at the back on grey sugar paper (for effect), slickly named ‘The Information’.  It covers maintenance (cogent wisdom and sage advice on keeping body, soul, and all your stuff in prime condition); formality (because serious business requires a little thought and effort); informality (everything you need to know about dressing down but not out) and best of all, etiquette (a quasi-scientifical guide to modern civility and human behaviour).  The 'casualometer' is also worth checking out - a rare journo-structuralist encounter that I'm sure Claude Lévi-Strauss would approve of.

Here are some tasters ... [note: legal team, please don't hurt me, surely you can see how I'm positively publicising your magazine here!]

10. And finally, in the words of the editor himself ...

[T]his volume of our Big Black Book contains many of the best things on earth … We explore what sets some things apart from others: We [tell] the stories behind the best objects ever made.  We [try] to demonstrate the difference between that which is truly valuable and that which is merely expensive.

I really like this angle on luxury - sounds like a sensible rapprochement of brand and product.

The cultural relativism of HSBC

I’ve been meaning to blog about this since I spotted them at the airport a while back.

I don’t have an HSBC account, so I can't vouch for the quality of their services and all that, but I’ve long been a fan of their “The world’s local bank” idea.  This was particularly smart at a time (around 2001 I think) when Barclays was boasting about how ‘big’ they were, only to close down hundreds of their smaller branches all over rural parts of the UK around the same time - bloody accountants eh! ;)

So here’s some recent examples from HSBC's culturally sensitive oeuvre.  The idea is a rather simple one, but then I guess the best ones often are …

 

Friday chuckle

Forgive me if this did the rounds ages ago and I missed it, otherwise if Jack Nicholson on advertising sounds like fun then suggest you give it a go ...

Branding: life after death?

It seems fashionable in blogging circles at the moment to reluctantly utter (or celebrate – depending on ones perspective!) death on thy business neighbour.  Yes, if our faithful RSS feeders are to be believed, advertising is dead, marketing is dead, and now it would seem that even branding (the artform that we have held tightly to our bosom for so long) is experiencing major turbulence and fast plummeting nose-down into the dead sea! 

It’s difficult to locate when this first happened, but I suspect Naomi Klein had, at the very least, a passing influence.  Ironically, by attempting to unpick the very seams of branding, she produced a book that was more revealing about how to ‘do branding’ than 99% of marketing textbooks, with some nice ethical learning points for good measure (perhaps Nike could have got to this earlier had they properly digested it).

Let’s take a look at the brand itself as a cultural symbol for a sec.  Without getting too etymologically hung up on things, brands no longer simply stand for positive meanings of trust and quality … if they ever did.  They have become inflected with a host of negative meanings such as image over substance, excessive prices, globalisation, conspicuous logos, subliminal messaging, McWorlds, StarbuckianScapes and Swooshified® Towns to name but a few.  It’s become a catch all for everything that is ambiguous, unexplainable and immeasurable with regards to a ‘company’ in marketing, and a scapegoat for things corrupt, untrue, big, bad and evil in commerce besides.  In sum then, people are no looking quite so smug on Brandtopia Boulevard, and many a marketer is already fleeing for the green marketing hills!

In a somewhat bizarre twist then, it’s starting to feel like ye olde product (materiality or stuff if you prefer) is making a surging comeback.  Yep, whilst the pomo branding brigade were busy losing themselves in hyperreality, it seems the techy guys sussed out their symbolic code and snuck in through the NPD back door. Which means we’re back to the land of utility maximisation, right?  After all, isn’t Innocent and the recent run of success stories just plain simple great products, nothing more?  A tempting outlook, but let's not get carried away ...

Of course the classic advertising and branding story goes that products are undifferentiated these days; that the point of difference is purely the imagery bestowed upon it.  Well, from where I’m standing (bearing in mind that semiotics and the like is my local hood!) apart from a brief moment in fashion when people were paying £200 for a jumper simply because it had the initials “D&G” bestowed upon it, products have always mattered.  I’m not saying that word-of-mouth, negative PR and product reviews in magazines are perfect at separating the wheat from the chaff, but within reason, suspect products (by this I mean it fits badly, works terribly, tastes awful, combusts instantaneously upon purchase etc.) dressed up as sexy brands have only gone so far.  Not to say that the ‘best’ products have always emerged victorious for sure, but, it’s always been a balancing act.  And I dare say that in our eco-aware, health/nutrition-conscious climate, pressure will be increasingly mounting to bring balance to the marketing force.

[A quick note to any readers of precious post-structuralist type ilk (all two of you!): I’m not saying that material properties are devoid of any form of socially constructed meaning: clearly things like durability, speed, etc. are themselves socio-historically situated and subject to representation.  But, nevertheless, these still have ‘real effects' in the rough n tumble world that you and I know.  Anyway …]

What I don’t want to suggest is that we go back full circle to the product-is-all-that-matters philosophy either.  When viewed as the symbolic dimension of an object or product, brands are always going to exist regardless of whether they are 'engineered directly' so to speak.  So even if a company is completely product design-focused, they will still end up with some sort of brand at the end of the day.  Through this alternative material-cultural lens, perhaps we can safely say that there are a few things left to say about brands after all.  This feels more interesting and productive than being bogged down by the latest set of cultural meanings that just so happen to be associated with the word ‘brand’ through negative press, overuse, marketer abuse and the usual set of clichés. 

In the spirit of shameful appropriation then (especially given his aversion to materiality!), here’s a branding slant on Jacque Derrida’s words regarding the future of deconstruction …

It’s necessary to distinguish between the fate of the word ‘brand’, and other things that are able to develop as a ‘brand’ without the name.  The word will not be used indefinitely.  It will wear itself out.  But beyond the word, this might take a little longer…

So there you have it.  Jacque is back.  Culturemaking is back (or so he says).  And brands will be kind of back eventually – once products get the fuller recognition they deserve.  And in the end, we're still probably better to also try and influence brand symbolism directly than rely purely on product design performance alone – and let retail/distribution, the media, viral effects and plain ol' serendipity do all the symbolic heavy-loading for us ... right?

A blogger's cold

[IMAGE VIA AN-HA]

Hey.  I know what you’re thinking … he writes an annoyingly long post and then thinks he can bugger off on a blogging holiday for a few months!

I know it’s blogging etiquette around here (socially constructed ‘rules’, you see ;) to leave some kind of message when you do a disappearing act, so I’m sorry that I failed miserably on that front! 

Particularly for letting Asi down, after his very kind plug.  And also, for contributing to the more general silence that has been picked up by the 'always on' Faris ... blame Facebook I say! ;)  Plus I was finally building up a semi-half-decent hit rate, or at least so my statcounter led me to believe, so please hang in there fellow cyber-dudes!

The truth is that the last month or so has been a bit tricky on many levels, work and personal, so blogging has taken a back seat.  Even my RSS feeder is reaching atom-ic meltdown, so if I’ve missed any must-see posts (it could even be your own!) then please comment away …

I’m hoping a better service to resume very soon – not that I’m the most prolific at the best of times anyway ... I don’t know how some of you blogging machines do it!  But full respect to y'all.

See you soon ... M

Civilisation Take 2.0

[IMAGE VIA ZAP ART]

The word is about, there's something evolving,
whatever may come, the world keeps revolving
They say the next big thing is here,
that the revolution's near,
but to me it seems quite clear
that it's all just a little bit of history repeating

('History Repeating' - The Propellerheads feat. Dame Shirley Bassey)

Whenever homo sapiens first walked the earth (please feel free to contextualise this with you own date, theory, religion etc.) clearly there would have been no such things as institutions, governments, and (heaven-for-bid-it) brands.  It would have been, more or less, one big social free-for-all; where people could pretty much go off gallivanting around wherever they wanted.

But then soon enough small tribes formed in order to create some form of social system and territorial boundaries.  Thereafter, we all know the basic story: this eventually snowballed into villages, towns and cities; with empires, aristocracies, governments, presidents, prime ministers and the like on hand to keep us all in check.  So, whereas once upon a time we more or less did as we pleased, now there were geographical, social, political, economic and cultural boundaries in place which limited what we could and couldn’t do.

In terms of the much more recent ‘Internet revolution’ (or other such term - pick your own metaphor!) a question that I keep asking myself is whether this is 'all just a little bit of history repeating?' (to quote Dame Shirley Bassey from a rather brilliant Propellarheads track).  To flesh out this thought a little, two examples - the 'communitisation' of marketing-related blogging and regulation of web 2.0 – feel rather apt, so here I go …

The 'communitisation' of marketing-related blogging: a 100% unofficial, partial, incomplete account

Towards the end of 1997 when blogging first started out (in the Jorn Barger sense at least), it would have been rather like a digital ghost-town.  Few blogging hosts; few blogs; few users etc.  But following the lauch of Open Diary (1998), LiveJournal (1999) and Blogger (1999), blogging soon started to gain momentum.  By 2001 blogging was becoming an increasingly visible phenomenon, and by 2002 a number of American political communities had emerged, fuelled, in particular, by discussion of the Iraq war.  Meanwhile, the world of business had also caught on, but the marketing blogging scene consisted mainly of passionate early adopters and solus blogging experiments rather than distinct communities per se. 

To gain a kind of retro-fitting experience, I decided to follow veteran blogger Russell Davies’ posts from Aug 2003 (well, a bit of the way through anyway), and even then you can get a vibe of what it might have been like.  For example, from his first fifty posts he received only four comments - whereas nowadays the reverse scenario is far more likely (interestingly, there is a comment on Russell’s first post, but this actually came much later – coincidentally from another curious blogging archaeologist called Marcus in April 2007).  Many of the other earlier marketing-related blogs that I know of such as Adland (2000 - in blog form), Adrants (March 2002), This Blog Sits At (Aug 2002), The Hidden Persuader (Aug 2003) and Living Brands (Aug 2004) also follow a similar development curve.  Something that stands to reason about this 'golden age' (as Russell refers to it) is that (I sense) there would have been less pressure and a greater sense of freedom back then.  No thousands of ardent RSS feed-readers to entertain; one blog to maintain – not several; no critical onlookers; less need to split up work and personal life, and so on.

Around the end of 2004 something significant was starting to happen.  A largely US 'marketing as disruption and conversation' scene was blossoming – notably by Seth Godin and Hugh McLeod – whilst Russell was fast attracting a largely UK-US mix of enlightened planners that had finally found a virtual shoulder to theorise on (now commonly referred to as the Plannersphere).  Then slightly later, a graphic design strand started to gain momentum, courtesy of blogs like The Design Observer and Noisy Decent Graphics.  In the case of the Plannersphere specifically, we can now see how initiatives such as Coffee Mornings, the Plannershere Wiki and Account Planning School of the Web (which has since migrated shores), combined with Faris’ AccountPlan.ning and Beersphere have fostered and cemented a sense of community even further.  Elsewhere, Grant McCracken has also spoken enthusiastically about the potential for a Blogger's Business School with a strong cultural component (a lovely idea I must say – no cultural bias here of course!).  This list is far from exhaustive, but we can nonetheless see how an open virtual space is starting to arrange itself into smaller, more manageable, focused virtual communities.  Of course, these are far from being independent communities – they overlap considerably, yet, there is still a sense of consolidation and clustering taking shape.

Now, I am certainly not suggesting that this is a bad thing - on the contrary, I think it’s fantastic that like-minded people have been able to come together.  But nevertheless, we can see how a process of 'communitisation' is underway.  One where marketing, as a floating subject of interest in cyberspace, is being softly institutionalised by a nexus of virtual communities - even if they’re considerably less rigid than their offline, physical counterparts.  Moreover, if we take the evolution of the blog to its logical conclusion, it begs the question: to what extent do people really own their blog?  After all, if consumers’ own and control brands, then surely other blogger’s own your blog, right?  Well, I prefer the idea that both brands and blogs are co-created, rather than purely consumer-owned, but nevertheless, pleasing yourself and pleasing your readers can soon turn out to be a more two-pronged affair.

The regulation of web 2.0

Roughly running in parallel, we have also seen developments on the web applications side.  Wikipedia may currently remain open source, but the technicalities are now more technical, and the pressure and responsibility of educating the world accurately is mounting.  Google is fast becoming more complex, cluttered, commercial and intrusive vs its minimalist ‘just hit search’ virginity years.  And most significantly of all, we have seen MySpace – the daddy of social networking since 2004 - see its crown being eyed-up by the fiercely growing Facebook community.  Ironically, given the ‘open’ ethos of everything 2.0, many people feel that Facebook’s competitive advantage has come from its superior privacy settings.   As a closed network built on trust, it steers people to others that they’ve already met in the outside world, rather than just cyber-randoms.

Yet many people are still finding the openness of Facebook increasingly challenging.  There is something about putting relatives, friends, old school chums and (ex) work colleagues all in one virtual space that can feel uncomfortable.  Not to mention receiving invitations from people one barely knows or would rather leave behind at the school gate, yet feel obligated to accept them for the worry of offending.  Identities may well be distributed, but within the Facebook microcosm specifically, postmodern-style chameleonism is actually quite tricky.  And just as Facebook looks set to trump MySpace by offering greater privacy settings and user control, the question begs whether there is an opportunity for a competitor to do the same to Facebook e.g. by giving people even greater control over the ability to further organise and partition their friends perhaps?  The problem with social networking platforms - but one that creates opportunities for competitors - is the difficulty of back-tracking once companies have committed to a certain modus operandi.      

An open ended final thought: the freedom vs control paradox

Both of these examples demonstrate how the Internet is subtly becoming more organised and regulated.  To revisit my earlier analogy, it is going through a process not too dissimilar to the way in which civilisation evolved over thousands of years; where continents, countries, cities, towns and villages became geographically marked; governments formed; along with organisations and institutions of every colour and stripe. 

But just before I push the analogy too far and find myself surrounded by angry bearded historians and red-eyed futurologists, an important distinction is that the Internet is being regulated by everyone – from the big power plays made by Google, Facebook, PayPal and co. to the embryonic stepping stones made by everyday open source contributors.  So it’s far from being a simple top-down affair; it’s more top-down, bottom-up, side-to-side, and any other trajectory that takes your fancy.  Moreover, isn’t increasing organisation and regulation only a natural counter response to increasing freedom?  To name but a few obvious examples, we have Google and Wikipedia empowering education and learning; MySpace and Facebook empowering togetherness and communication; Blogger and TypePad empowering self-publishing and conversation; and Google Maps and Google Earth empowering geographical awareness and mobility.

So, we find ourselves in a situation where we have the freedom to voice our enthusiasm, thoughts and ideas; make interesting friends that we never knew we had; and buy-sell anything going with celebrity cache; but on the proviso that we are (at least) hovering around the Powerblogging standard; shielding ourselves from the other crackpots that skew towards the more disturbing side of interesting; taking precautions against identity theft and buying fake products; and otherwise adhering strictly to the blogger's coffee table manual.  Whilst it’s difficult to predict just where this extreme freedom and control duality will ultimately take us (The Matrix ... surely not!), of course we can be sure that it will all seem rather obvious in hindsight.  So for now, let us savour the freedom we all (still) have - as the true pioneering Internet generation, and enjoy the ride.  As I dare say history is going to look back rather fondly on us, being the founders of civilisation take 2.0 and all that.

Take it away Shirley ... ;)

Crack for brand philosopher types

YouTube does it again!

Clips of the publicised debate that took place between Noam Chomsky and Michel Foucault in 1971, nicely summed up here as:

[O]ne of the most original, provocative, and spontaneous exchanges to have occurred between contemporary philosophers, and above all serves as a concise introduction to their basic theories. What begins as a philosophical argument rooted in linguistics (Chomsky) and the theory of knowledge (Foucault), soon evolves into a broader discussion encompassing a wide range of topics, from science, history, and behaviorism to creativity, freedom, and the struggle for justice in the realm of politics.

Enjoy.

Embracing failure since 1848

[IMAGE VIA THE AMERICAS LIBRARY]

I've long been a fan of Wieden & Kennedy's embrace failure philosophy.

Not only is it a great way of motivating staff and clients to push creative boundaries, but on a personal level, I'm conscious that the fear of failure rears its ugly head more often than I would like it to.

I was therefore quite chuffed with this little find; a quote courtesy of J.S. Haliday, author of The World Rushed In, capturing life in California during the 1848-1855 gold rush:

"As like no where else, you can fail in California. And I think the California gold rush taught people that failure was okay.  And the reason being that everyone failed in California - everyone, every day.  So failure, was not a distinction, not a burden, not a mark, not a shame. Failure in Des Moin, failure in Youngstown, failure in Savannah, failure in Philadelphia, well, you'd hear "what's the matter with you?  Your father's disappointed in you." You don't want to fail at home. But you feel free to fail in California. The result is that people accepted failure - which is the equivalent of saying they are willing to take risks. And California has been the most risk-taking economy and society in the nation. Maybe in the world."

This also highlights another crucial point: don't ignore history and the way that it has comes to shape the present.  Embrace history - it might just tell you a few things that consumers can't.

Anyone feeling stuff(ed) yet ?

[IMAGE VIA AD LETTERS FIRDGE GENERATOR]

You hardly need to be a discourse analyst to realise that the language (or tone of voice, if you insist) used in marketing comms has been changing rapidly across a variety of product categories; from food to finance.

To (over) simplify a complex evolution, in 1998 Innocent Drinks was born, and in the years that followed much of the marketing world (in the UK at least) started to grow increasingly self-conscious and feel somewhat awkwardly over-dressed.

Supplanting the usual dry, rational, consumer business speak (bound up in a discourse of formalism, fact and truth) came Innocent’s sweet little human-istic words and phrases like “tasty”, “stuff”, “honest”, “no funny business”, “popping in the fridge” et al.

And a stroke of genius it was.  Innocent soon became the must-have drinking accessory for health-conscious mothers and general guilt-ridden fruit-skippers.  In the brand personality sense, Innocent had pretty much inverted the category; making every other fruit juice look dry, stiff, and dull in comparison.

Interestingly enough, this development roughly parallels the shift from third person reporting to first person introspection; from formal letters to informal emails; from consumer magazines to consumer blogs; and from PC’s to Apple Macs.

Pushing this parallel a little further, it’s hardly an exaggeration to say that many a marketing blog uses language that wouldn’t look out of place alongside Innocent’s advertising, website and packaging.  If I had a [insert a single unit of your local currency here] for every time that ‘stuff’ was used in a blog post (mea culpa), I’d be a rich man! 

Indeed ‘stuff’ - a word that was once considered too vague, imprecise, and sloppy to be of any use to the marketing lexicon - is now somewhat of a fashion leader.  In fact, shock horror, I even had an email from one of my management consultant friends the other day sporting the 'stuff' word (bearing in mind he's typically planned his whole life within the confines of an Excel spreadsheet according to the tenets of planning, implementation and control!  Sorry Rish ... ;)

Also hot on its linguistic tail, ‘honesty’ is now being favoured over ‘trust’, whilst ‘unadulterated’ is also climbing rapidly up the copyrighter buzz chart.

But at the very point when this ‘kidult’-like marketing speak is fast-approaching the Gladwellian tipping point, I’m already starting to feel a little queasy.  Is this semantic-symbolic shortcut for sweet, innocent and natural not already starting to create a sea-of-sameness I ask? 

Let’s consider some extracts from Dorset Cereals website for example – a somewhat brave move considering its identity and packaging is one of the slickest around at the moment …

   

And there's more (this time from its packaging) ...

"We take delicious things and add some more delicious things, then we mix them up a bit"

"It's all about enjoying good things with other good things - like a doze and a deckchair, a flag and a sandcastle or rock pools and crabs"

Now don’t get my wrong, this is all admirably bang 'on trend' right now (for want of a better phrase).  But I suspect “splashing in muddy puddles”, “wooden trucks full of chunky slices” and “lovely beach stuff” is only going to look endearing, cute and cuddly for so long.

Further, with so many brands now jumping on Farmer Giles' imperfectly hand-drawn tractor, it’s starting to feel somewhat mushy, contrived and predictable.  As someone who deconstructs FMCG packaging at breakfast, literally, there are only so many stories about "little things" and "lovely stuff" I can read before the gorgonzola-stilton cocktail aroma starts making my eyes water (and quite frankly ruining my breakfast).

But where in future then?  Back to the dry, stiff, man-in-a-white-coat copy of old?  Well, I certainly hope not.  I guess we’ll just have to remain patient and see – unless anyone else happens to have made an early sighting of the next ‘linguistic turn’ that is?

The Interestingness Economy

[IMAGE: EYE OF HAINT]

Finally got round to reading all the great things about the Interesting 2007 gig – that'll teach me for not snapping up a ticket quick enough!

Amongst all of the brilliant blogging after thoughts, here, here and here for example, it’s got me thinking about the related concept of ‘interestingness’, which is something that Jeffre (here, here, here) and Russell (here) have discussed previously.

It might come as no surprise to even the passing title skimmer of this blog, that my humble contribution to the ‘interestingnessphere' (hey, just kidding!) comes by the way of dialling up the importance of culture in the mix.  Specifically, it’s ocurred to me that interestingness is more or less akin to the cultural theorist’s favourite trump card: cultural relevance.

Here’s some thoughts why…

When something interests people on a global or national level it often goes on to become a visible part of mass culture.

If something interests people on a local or group level it can be considered to appealing to a sub-culture, micro-culture, or at least some kind of neo-tribe.

At an individual level (tying in with the above points), a person's cultural background and value system plays a crucial role in interpretation and ultimately what they find interesting.

Following ideas of the socio-cultural variety, what is interesting is never fixed, it is constantly in a state of flux.  And even when things do stay interesting over a long period, most of the time it’s because they’ve reinvented the representation to keep it culturally relevant.

Rethinking, reimagining and reinventing culture is important, since something interesting is often interesting precisely because it usually contains an element of the re-familiar.

I used to have a quote on my blog title (I should bring it back) by George Washington Carver, who’s quoted as saying: “

“When you do the common things in life in an uncommon way, you will command the attention of the world.”

This is something that is culturally relevant, innovative, and therefore, interesting!

I thought I’d be a bit adventurous and try running this quote through a trusty matrix to see what happens …

The outcome suggests that perhaps there are four main manifestations of ‘interesting’ (broadly speaking):

Common things in life in a common way
This is the very familiar, not particularly groundbreaking, but if it’s done better than everyone else (e.g. like the Japanese who value perfection and continuous improvement) it's interesting.  Could also include icons, classics and vintage for example.

Uncommon things in life in a common way
The idea is new and unfamiliar, but the design/execution is familiar, so that people can still relate to it and find it interesting.

Common things in life in an uncommon way
The vision of George Washington Carver above.  The idea is familiar, but the design and execution is renewed/refreshed.  Quite possibly the holy grail of interesting to the mass market.

Uncommon things in life in an uncommon way
Abstraction and ambiguity.  Because the idea and the execution are both unfamiliar, we have no direct frame of reference to guide an interpretation.  More likely to interest imaginative artsy folk.

Also just to note that I’m not suggesting that something has a definitive classification here, or that it won't vary person by person.  Further, idea and design/execution cannot be neatly separated – they are ultimately bound to each other.  But sometimes it can still help to artificially split them - and then piece things back together again when no one's looking ;)

The dark horse of type fonts

Used in the right way, I absolutely love this type font. 

Granted it's not quite consistent across the full 'A-Z' spectrum, but some of the letters (see examples below) totally captivate me.

Any takers for having a guess on what it is? ;)

Re-imagining Creativity Part II

[ IMAGE: A PHOTOMOSAIC OF VINCENT VAN GOGH'S 'A STARRY NIGHT' VIA ANDREAPLANET ]

Asi over at No Man’s Blog has put together a nice build on the general imitating and stealing idea that's implicit in Faris' blog, and one which I’ve also touched on myself (never to miss a philosophy gig!) to some degree here.  Since I wrote this post I’ve actually been pondering on what this all really means, so Asi has now inspired me to write a timely sequel and fine tune (or ‘re-imagine’) some of my earlier points.

To briefly recap then, taken to its logical conclusion, the idea implies that nothing is truly original, only ever a remake of something else.  Yet every act of re-imagining/remixing/ remaking – bricolage if you will – still requires a degree of personal vision and creativity, even if a person’s ability to think is always culture-bound.  Thus without jumping head-long into a structure-agency discussion here, re-imagination still requires people to act upon the original idea - they're not just passive dupes on a cultural re-production line.

Moreover, it feels like re-production and originality operate on different levels i.e. there is a difference between replication and re-appropriation.  And we can see this happening all the time on our virtual doorstop.  The Internet has generally fostered a 'cut n paste' culture, where ‘authorship’ has become meaningless or an insurmountable detective game at least.  But, for all the fanciful ‘death of the author’ theorising that goes on around these cyber-parts (hey, don’t look at me!) there’s still a harsh emotional reality when someone just comes along and takes credit for other people's work; especially if it’s work that people have given a lot of time and effort to.  I mean, goodness knows how schools and universities are able to keep tabs on plagiarism nowadays.  Not to mention those instances of blogger warfare that have been known to break out when someone doesn’t provide a link or reference to the original work (I recall a pretty heated moment a year or two ago involving someone who cut n pasted a PSFK post without any kind of acknowledgement).  Were they in the wrong?  Surprisingly, the commentary and feedback was actually quite mixed.

In any event, clearly we should also pay homage here to the great knowledge sharing and idea building culture that goes on all the time throughout the blogosphere.  Let’s take Faris’ brilliant Transmedia Planning post for example.  Ever the visionary, he realised the potential of extending Henry Jenkins’ work on Convergence Culture, which has since been further appropriated and theorised by the likes of Jason over at The Fruits of Imagination blog.  So, with a nod to Asi, this is clearly an example of Bakhtin’s ‘complex chain of utterances’ in action, but it still feels a little unfair on these ‘authors’ to say that they’ve just re-produced the work of others.  Clearly each ‘author’ has made a novel addition to the conversation in some way by weaving it together with another idea.

So, in a desperate bid to do my incremental duty, my halfway house exposé goes something like this: people’s thoughts and ideas are always subject to, and dependent on, the other thoughts and ideas that inspire and pre-exist their own.  Yet, people are still able to rearticulate, combine, and re-imagine these ideas in fresh and novel ways, which in turn allows them to extend and expand the body of cultural knowledge*.  So, contra Barthes, perhaps we're not 'dead authors' after all, but rather, something more akin to 'idea mixologists', that whilst never tangibly owning the content of ideas themselves, can lay claim to the idiosyncratic ways that existing ideas can be meshed together, represented, and ultimately, disseminated.

* Or, to use the parallel physical analogy, we can only make things in the world out of the materials and resources that already exist in the world.  Neither do the materials and resources decide the things that we make, nor do the things that we make ever come from new materials and resources that magically appear out of nowhere.

The potential of representation

[ IMAGE VIA SPELL WITH FLICKR ] 

Sometimes cultural theorists will talk about the ‘crisis of representation’.

Roughly speaking, this refers to the fact that it is impossible to represent any concept, idea or ‘thing’ without resorting to some form of representation, be it visual, verbal and/or audio, and that ultimately, this representation will influence how the ‘thing’ is perceived and interpreted, for better, or for worse. 

For example, not everyone cares about what they look like with regards to fashion (your dad or boss perhaps?), yet, like it or not, in part, they will still be judged by how they (re)present themselves.  Even the subject that I’m blogging about now is being brought into view by representation.  It’s being shaped by the design of the blog; the words that I am using to explain it; the medium on which you are viewing it etc. etc.

The upshot of all this for marketing is a rather worrying one: how do we successfully ‘represent’ our great ideas in all their HDTV, digital, Dolby-surround-sound glory?  If it fails miserably, how do we know whether it was the fault of the idea or execution?  Moreover, can a great idea make up for a poor execution?  And can a great execution make up for a poor idea?  And so the tension between strategists and creatives is born: “you’re not doing justice to my idea says the strategist” … “that’s because I’m working in a straight-jacket says the creative!”

You might be relieved to hear that it is not my intention to try and crack these questions here (that’ll errrr … follow in 2009!), but what I’d like to do is draw attention to the potential of representation.

For example, despite the retail cashier’s and e-tail sites telling you that this

just means “thirty five 'pounds' precisely,” I dare say that BBH and BA might be inclined to disagree.

Rather, we have

£35 of quick-dry iPod paint

£34 of blooming art nouveau

£39 of psychedelic-pop-surrealism

£49 of translucent glowing jelly

a £44 fluffy cloudscape formation

and a £40 swirl-tastic rollerball.  Well, kind of.

And as well as this nice TV ad, there’s also plenty of other outdoor BA pricing gems dotted around the urban landscape at the moment (well, throughout the London Underground at least), that might be of interest to the ardent design-enthusiast-cum-ad-spotter.

Taking a cue from my blog ethos above then (sidebar, top right), perhaps this helps to support my proposal that nothing exists outside of cultural representation; why strategy cannot be divorced from execution; and ultimately, why, if you ignore design, you do so at your peril.  But rather than viewing representation as a ‘crisis’ (those nihilistic postmodern pessimists eh!), why not (re)frame it as ‘potential’?

Sorry, I’m conscious that I’m turning into a bit of preaching sod that just tends to ‘blog at people’.  So please, cometh 2.0 interactionists, tell me I’m talking a pile of thingy, but remember to think carefully about how you ‘represent’ it first … I wouldn't want anyone to make the same foolish mistakes I do! ;)

Brand Britain

[ IMAGE VIA WIKIPEDIA / MICHAEL REEVES ]

I've been doing a fair bit of reading around national identity and place branding quite recently.

Here's a quote from Mark Leonard that I particularly like:

"[R]enewing Britain's identity does not mean inventing a completely new image of Britain or doing away with its heritage and tradition.  It means regalvanizing excitement around Britain's core values - as a democratic and free society in an interconnected world - and finding a better way of linking pride in the past with confidence in the future."

Sounds like wise culturemaking advice to me, and neatly ties in with this.

Perhaps nostalgic identity brands might also want to take note.

Much appreciated

Sorry for the lack of action around this part of the ‘sphere lately - had little time for ‘play’ unfortunately.  I must however, make time to get an accumulation of gratitude out of my system.

Thanks to …

Dino at Chroma for making contact last month, your blog is on fire at the moment by the way!

Richard and Fredrik for their kind words on this post – always nice to know that you've interested at least one person 'out there'.

Jon for including me on his March’s Top Blogging (and for running an extended list which allowed me to sneak onto it!) 

Dino, Fredrik, Jon, Scott and Gareth more generally for kindly adding Culturemaking to their blogroll (… how much is it that I need to send you guys through on PayPal again?) 

Not content with imposing myself on the plannersphere, my cyber-trawls have also taken me as far as the delightful designersphere, where David the Designer very generously sent me this wonderful book in the post

for errrr … basically scarring off his readers! 

As a cultural insight brand man, I don’t have a natural virtual residence as such, especially as there appears to be few semiotic-type bloggers out there.  So I'm very grateful that planning and design are willing to pitch up a tent for me. 

Warmly,

Marcus

Bruce Lee and the Art of Branding

In part, this post is an excuse to showcase one of my favourite YouTube moments: a homage to Bruce Lee based mainly on edited footage from the 'lost' interview that he gave on the Pierre Burton Show in 1971.  That said, I also feel that there are some useful branding tips one can learn.

Bruce may be a rather overplayed iconic figure nowadays (those marketing cultural parasites eh!), but let's not let that get in the way of just what a truly remarkable man he was.  What I've always admired most about Bruce is the sheer enthusiasm, passion and curiosity that he diplayed throughout his life.  This is a man that not only created Jeet Kune Do (an important precursor to mixed martial arts) and made Chinese martial arts accessible to Hollywood and the entire western world, but one that took it on himself to learn philosophy at the University of Washington.  What is even more fascinating, is that Bruce’s studies actually informed Jeet Kune Do i.e. it is based on an underlying philosophical view of knowledge claims, truth and reality.  So much so, that his approach is sometimes referred to as a postmodern anti-style.

Lets take a look at the clip …

Now lets apply a branding spin - as a bit of fun (sorry to have to do this to you Bruce!)

Bruce says: "Be formless... shapeless, like water”

I say: don't impose structure on a problem too early or stick rigidly to a process for process sake.  Explore freely and allow your mind to wander; work adaptively and flexibly.

Bruce says: "Here is natural instinct and here is control. You are to combine the two in harmony, now if you have one to the extreme, you will be very unscientific. If you have another to the extreme, you will all of a sudden be a mechanical man, no longer a human being. It is a successful combination of both. Therefore, it is not naturalness or unnaturalness. The ideal is unnatural, naturalness or natural, unnaturalness."

I say: In the end, a marriage of qualitative and quantitative insight is most sensible (where possible).  But my personal preference is 'culture-led' i.e. cast your net wide and understand the problem/category/brand within its socio-cultural context first (via cultural analysis), rather than restricting your vision at the outset with consumer needs and statistical 'facts'.  Like Bruce also once said: "True observation begins when one is devoid of set patterns."

Bruce says: "I do not believe in styles any more"

I say: Don't get caught up with one one-fits-all models that claim to be the holy grail of branding.  Mixing and matching different ideas, innovations, communication codes and media platforms often works best and allows you to execute your brand idea in a much more compelling and interesting way.  Sticking with the fighting metaphor, Bruce also once said ...

"The best fighter is not a Boxer, Karate or Judo man. The best fighter is someone who can adapt to any style. He kicks too good for a Boxer, throws too good for a Karate man, and punches too good for a Judo man."

And again ...

"Some people are tall; some are short. Some are stout; some are slim. There are various different kinds of people.  If all of them learn the same martial art form, then who does it fit?"

Expect the Creative Generalists amongst us might particularly appreciate these two.

Bruce says:"Express oneself honestly, not lying to oneself"

I say: If there is an overriding maxim for 2007 then it's honesty, as empitomised by Innocent and copied by just about everybody else ... Dorset Cereals included! ;O

As a final point, I would just like to touch on Bruce Lee's approach to physical training, which could be equally said of marketing ...

"Training is one of the most neglected phases of athletics. Too much time is given to the development of skill and too little to the development of the individual for participation ... Jeet Kune Do, ultimately is not a matter of petty techniques but of highly developed spirituality and physique."

As a parallel, this captures how the marketing industry prioritises endless doing over time for learning, thinking and personal development.  There are people who have worked in the industry for many years, clocked up a wealth of experience, and mastered all of the 'core skills' required, but because they have taken little time to read, explore, and broaden their horizons, they have remained trapped inside the paradigms of old, oblivious to the creative possibilities that lie before them.  On this note then, here's a final quote from Bruce that also seems to ring true of marketing ...

"[W]hen clans are formed, the people of a clan will hold their kind of martial art as the only truth and do not dare to reform or improve it. Thus they are confined in their own tiny little world. Their students become machines which imitate martial art forms."

Update:

Sorry, I temporarily lost the YouTube video link, but fear not, all has now been restored via (the more reliable?) Daily Motion.

Also, if you fancy another sitting, Olivier has carried on from where I left off with some great builds here.

Brand map of Second Life

Cool idea courtesy of Kzero.

Just click to enlarge.

Culturemaking encoded

A little old now but I still like it.

Culturemaking gets Coldplay's X&Y treatment.

The cultural resolution

A few months back, when the plannersphere was going a bit myth crazy, it triggered a build that's been hiding at the back of my thought cabinet.  So here it is, finally.  For John it's the 'conflict resolution approach', whilst for Faris it's a turn to the 'dark side' of the force.  In both cases, they are essentially alluding to the way that brands draw on myths to resolve cultural contradictions. 

Faris pays a nice homage to the myth-meister general himself Claude Lévi-Strauss.  A structural anthropologist who described the purpose of myth as 'provid[ing] a logical model capable of overcoming a contradiction.'  Contradictions stem from opposing structural relations, made up of universal binaries, which Lévi-Strauss considered to be universal concerns of all cultures. 

One of the first people to apply Lévi-Strauss' thinking to the branding world (commercially at least) were the UK marketing semioticians Ginny Valentine and Monty Alexander, who started using the myth quadrant around the early nineties.  This is basically where two binaries - that have high structural relevance to the category - are paired off against each other to generate two 'cultural norms' and two 'cultural contradictions'.  The two cultural contradictions provide an opportunity for brands to engineer a resolution that has the potential to transform the category.  Here's the model brought to life based on the fundamental structure of female beauty, featuring the ever-popular blog case study, Dove ... 

Various explanations have been offered for the success of Dove, but I'd argue that this is one of the more powerful ones given that Dove is ultimately resolving the modern day contradiction of female beauty - attractiveness with 'real' curves, in larger sizes etc.  The irony of course, is that Dove's images are still not a 'real' depiction of female beauty as such, since they remain an aspirational ideal for many 'everyday women'.  On browsing through a selection of ads for this example generally, it was quite disturbing just how few ads use 'everyday women', other than insurance, anti-smoking and other government-led campaigns. 

That said, it's certainly a more motivating and realistic goal for most women compared with all other cosmetic and beauty communications, which only draw on 'unreal(istic) beauty'.  Dove broke the mould, and the rest, as they say, is history.  I can't say that I know how the insight really emerged, possibly from a stream of insecure, fed-up women in focus groups and interviews.  Be that as it may, this insight turns out to be a glaring opportunity once we turn our attention to locating modern female beauty within culture.

I would also like to turn briefly to another case study favourite, Persil's 'Dirt is Good'.  I don't wish to debate whether the campaign's really working for Unilever in financial terms here (this has already been discussed at length elsewhere), only to show that it's really a simple semiotic inversion strategy at heart ...

Admittedly the examples that I've used here are a little crude to serve the model's structuralist ends, so please, no hate mail or spam for suggesting that everyday women are unattractive - hopefully you get the point!  It's also worth noting a number of theoretical limitations.  To start, it offers a snapshot of a reality at a fixed moment in time; it does not account for the instability and historical specificity of cultural meanings over time e.g. during the Victorian period in England appreciation of 'real beauty' was the dominant norm by far. Nor are the contradictions necessarily applicable cross-culturally.  Beyond this, it is also fair to challenge the very notion that universal binaries structure culture, as not only does the model account for a limited set of structural relations at any one time, but it strips away, and is unable to cope with, the sheer cultural complexity of everday life.  Although I subscribe to these (poststructuralist) criticisms theoretically speaking, when it comes to the 'practical crunch' these limitations are less problematic, and it still remains one of the more powerful semiotic-type tools around.

A more nuanced cultural reading of female beauty ideals in the West might reveal how they are changing over time, broadly inline with global and local fashion, film, music, and other significant culture/media industries.  The cultural resonance and success of Dove's campaign for 'real beauty' for example, is also due in part to the broader naturalness tsunami that is sweeping across everything from food and healthcare to holidays and architecture.  The root cause of which is a backlash against the philosophy of scientific progress to a large extent, and the detrimental environmental and societal effects it’s being blamed for.  This also includes a cultural backlash against cosmetic surgery (despite its increasing popularity), airbrushed pictures, perfect models, celebrities and the like (think Getty Images vs Flickr).  But it's important to keep in mind a sense of cultural relativism at this point.  Dove is only 'real' because the rest of the beauty industry is so 'unreal'.  And with the exposure and influence of people generated content rapidly increasing, I suspect the real 'real beauty' resolution has only just stepped off the catwalk.

References

Lévi-Strauss, C.  (1977) Structural Anthropology, Harmondsworth: Peregrine.

Alexander, M.  (1996) "The Myth at The Heart of The Brand", The Big Brand Challenge ESOMAR Seminar, October.

Masters at work

Managed to cobble together some relaxation hours yesterday night (a somewhat rare occasion at the moment!) to watch the C4 repeat of the 100 Greatest Comedy Stand Ups – having missed it the first time around.

I actually think comedian's are great working examples for brands – regardless of whether the strategy is a humour-based one – in that their whole profession/act is based on cultural relevance and constant reinvention.  Their attention to news/media issues, societal tensions and cultural norms is second to none – putting most marketers, planners and cultural researchers to shame.  And as one critic pointed out, their ability to talk about high brow subjects in a low brow manner, and vice versa, is often a core part of their stand up strategy - an effective way of 'doing interesting'.

I was happy to see Chris Rock riding high on the list – one of my personal favourites alongside the overall voted number one Billy Connolly.  Here’s a classic clip of Rock in action, which ties in quite nicely with a previous post on the cultural construction of race …

Presenting Beardyman

                        

Last year, around June time, I went along to a rather brilliant design presentation night at Sadlers Wells.

On the lineup was a guy called Bernhard Steinerhoff who was billed as an Austrian environmental design thinker.  After a promising start, he randomly transformed into a human beatbox machine and delivered a bizzare yet outstandingly talented performance - I was truly blown away.  Did anyone else see it by chance?

Anyway, found out the other day that he’s only the UK beatbox champion aka Beardyman. 

Here’s his MySpace site and humorous personal website – well worth checking out.  Particularly enjoyed his Tim Shaw radio interview on Kerrang Radio.

Race, the floating signifier

This video isn't branding specific, but I think it's well worthwhile venturing outside of the branding bubble from time-to-time (at least).  It's a clip of Stuart Hall in action at Goldsmiths College talking about representation and signification in the context of race.  More generally, it encourages us to question taken-for-granted scientific truths and think about how meaning is socio-historically or culturally constructed.  If inspired, then you may want to check out the MEF for more cultural and media goodies.

AF's new testament

                                                                                    

Following up on Neil's lead, I finally got round to checking out NMEs' free premiere streaming of Arcade Fire's Neon Bible - and must say that I'm pretty impressed.

Track 4, Keep The Car Running, steals the show for me, quite possibly a contender for tune of the year even.  Kind of has a Christmas feel-good vibe without being Christmas-y if that errr, makes sense?  Must be the choir thing going on, which does straddle on the cusp of cheese at times, but heh, a little cheese never hurt anyone right?

Anyway, definitely worthy of a purchase.  You'll need to register and load the media player first - but all straightforward.

Enjoy.

Transculturalism: putting culture into community

Sometimes it can take a number of years for a term or idea to catch on, in this case, around sixty or so.  Transculturalism, a word that's slowly creeping its way into marketing-orientated books and blogs, was actually first coined back in 1940s by the Cuban anthropologist Fernando Ortiz.  What is even more astonishing, is that his thinking was based on an article published much earlier in 1891 by José Marti entitled 'Nuestra America'. 

An extract from this article, featured in the rather aptly named London Journal of Canadian Studies, captures the dynamics at play:

Ortiz, following Marti’s lead, defined transculturalism, in its earliest stage as a synthesis of two phases occurring simultaneously, one being a deculturalization of the past with a métissage with the present. This reinventing of new common culture is therefore based on the meeting and the intermingling of the different peoples and cultures. In other words one’s identity is not strictly one dimensional (the self) but is now defined and more importantly recognized in rapport with the other. In other words one’s identity is not singular but multiple. As Scarpetta stated earlier “Each person is a mosaic.” (p.8)

But I doubt even Marti or Ortiz realised just how relevant and powerful the idea of transculturalism would become, especially following the increasing ubiquity of the Internet throughout the world.  Transculturalism: how the world is coming together is a more modern take on this idea, which features a number of essays and personal tales about people who consider themselves ‘transculturalists’:

This book is about identity, and the modern quest for belonging.  Still, it’s not about conforming.  At its core, we will explore how certain curious, open-minded intelligent people manage, through perseverance and affinity, to adapt to new alien culture, in order to explore, examine and infiltrate foreign culture. (p.25)

What I like about the transculturalism idea generally, is the important role that it assigns to culture in the way that communities develop.  Reducing community to conformism based on psychological drivers is not sufficient in my humble opinion.  Transculturalism reminds us that cultural pre-understandings and diversity influence the way that communities are formed, and that grass-roots communities in turn influence the future by bringing ‘cultures’ together, not just ‘people’.  The fact that London is one of the most transcultural places on the planet (with around 270 nationalities blurring, bleeding, clashing, colliding), and quite possibly the most creatively diverse, clearly speaks volumes in this sense.  Which begs a key point: we need to be sensitive to the way in which transculturalism is not just a special case for globalisation studies and cross-cultural research, to varying degrees, transculturalism takes place at all levels of geography i.e. national, local and increasingly virtual.  Yes, cultural diversity is now more prevalent than ever, so let’s embrace it, and learn from it.

Food & drink weirdness

Been thinking ...

why is it that if we were to eat our food off of this

our experience would probably be much better than if we were to eat our food off of this?

And, why is it that if we were to drink a glass of wine from this

our experience would probably be much better than if we were to drink a glass of wine from this?

Scientifically speaking, the properties of the food/beverage liquid would be the same in both cases.  Physiologically speaking, our taste buds and sense of smell are the same in both cases (of course).  And yet, some how, it would just kind of, taste better. 

Why?

Here's a rough simplified theory ...

Culturally, white has a tendancy to signify meanings of purity, faith, truth and sincerity, So instinctively, people often perceive that white plates give rise to purer, cleaner, tastier food.

Whilst thin glass and thin stems has a tendancy to signify meanings of sophistication, delicateness and elgeance. So instinctively, people often perceive that a wine glass gives rise to more sophicated, refined and tastier wine.

Lesson: meanings play a fundamental role in shaping experience.  So take your lunch break early, get the 'best plate' and 'glass' in the work kitchen, and have a much better eating and drinking experience! ;)

Huge caveat: this is not a 'universal law'; object meanings change over time and people's out-take will vary subjectively and geographically according to personal/local nuances.  But the role of meaning-making always remains crucial nevertheless.

Pointless?  Maybe.  Or perhaps it goes someway to helping us to better understand this kinda thing ...

   

In order words by doing this, you can associate new meanings to your product/brand and transform the eating and drinking experience.

Beer from a watering can anyone? ;)

Re-imagining creativity

At the end of a previous post, I half-jokingly encouraged 'stealing' 'my' pictures for a presentation (how deluded I was ... I mean, like you'd want to completely wreck your presentation!).  At which point I linked to Faris given that it's perhaps the main thrust of his blog Talent Imitates Genius Steals.

Then, whilst preparing a paper the other day, I was reminded of the 'The Death of the Author' thesis that feels particularly pertinent to this issue.  For those unfamiliar with the idea, it suggests that we never truly create original meanings, since every representation - be it an essay, painting, technological device, whatever - is always based on, and only exists in terms of, other representations. 

So, was the iPod breakthrough creativity?  Well yes, but it is easy to forget how indebted it is to the Walkman, and don't forget there were many other MP3-type devices on the market well before it.  And even if we take the product design itself, the one that Jonathan Ive 'created', he couldn't have created the idea from scratch.  Rather, the inspiration/idea has to have originated from something else in his cultural memory, even if it is was something bizarre, like the clean, pristine meanings of a new ceramic white bath. 

Here's Barthes in action (in Image-Music-Text) explaining the idea far more poetically than I ...

"We know that a text is not a line of words releasing a single 'theological' meaning (the 'message' of the Author-God) but a multi-dimensional space in which a variety of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.  The text is a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture."

So, does this mean that we should never give any credit to anyone's ideas; that everyone is a plagiarist; that every creative awards ceremony has been nothing more than a mere illusion?  No, I don't think so.  But, what we need to realise is that creativity (whether though the act of writing, art, design etc.) is more about the art of 'appropriation' than pure 'invention'.  In order words, we do not create new things per se, but rather, appropriate existing things to arrive at alternative assemblages/constructions.

Taking this idea a step further, it suggests that creativity is inextricably linked to the interpretation of culture, at which point the ideas of Michel Foucault are particularly helpful.  In his latter work, Foucault implies (as an activist branding wasn't really his bag) that creativity is born out of people being critically aware of cultural meanings, and that leveraging (or re-imagining) those meanings gives us a strategic platform for creativity.

This helps us to better understand why creatives are good at what they do.  Whether it's an actor, comedian, artist or designer, they have an intuitive understanding of how certain elements of culture 'work' the way they do.  Comedians and scriptwriters for example, often make people laugh because they understand the societal norms and contradictions that present cultural loop-holes for irony, satire, ridicule etc. 

The key hook of all this is that by expanding your level of cultural awareness (your 'background books' as Umberto Eco calls them), it gives you the means (a 'technology of the self') to re-imagine a whole new world.

Calling all cultural creatives

                    

A colleague of mine is working on an interesting project and needs a leg up with recruitment.

As one possible route, I thought I'd see if anyone out there is interested, or knows of anyone that might be.  The exercise is generously incentivised, but I'm afraid I can't divulge any client/project details.

So, in the context of personalisation and customisation she is looking for creative and talented people with the following profile:

Available a few hours a day during a one month period (Mid February/Mid March 2007)

Male or female

Between 18 and 24 years old

Based in Paris, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Bombay, Cape Town, Sao Paulo, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and immersed in the local culture

Fluent English (both spoken and written, all the discussions held in English, all content to be developped in English)

Blog owners, or at least someone that regularly engages with blogs

At ease with internet/digital technologies (sharing data, posting pics/music/videos etc.), enough skills to make videos

Open to the world: travelling often abroad, open to different cultures, surfing regularly on the web

Equipped with ADSL (high speed connection), having easy access to/owning their own computer as well as their own video/camera devices

Loving to express themselves and personalise their life/universe (clothes, accessories, appearance, furniture, cars, personal items, music, video, graphic design, digital technology etc.)

Creative people and/or people working in the creative field

Sound interesting?  Comment or email me.  Thanks.

Histo-futurism anyone?

                                        

After bogging you down with some rather long-winded posts recently - too much to say clearly - here is something short and sweet.

We all know the loveable Taschen 'Icons' series right?  Well, within the Graphic Design for the 21st Century one there's an agency called 'Form', whose work I know not, but this is a lovely quote:

"The future and past make the present inspiring."

Besides being a philosophy and methodology rolled into one, it also hints at why nostalgia and anticipation has a tendancy to trump the here and now - well, for me anyway.

Coming to a world near you soon-ish

I've been pondering on the idea of the digital future recently, especially following this week’s announcement of the ‘won’t-even-bother-saying-or-linking-to-it’ device.  Given the phone's rather unpredictable 130 year history, any stab at this is clearly pure speculation, so here's a totally fun guess at the next 5-20 years (but scientifically precise of course!) based on Japan, pending innovation projects, industry hearsay, and a sci-fi corrupted imagination (yep, it’s Skywalker’s fault basically!) ..

1. Digital warfare takes place between hardware (e.g. Apple), software (e.g. Microsoft) and service (e.g. Google) providers over who's best positioned to look after the consumer's 'state' - their programs, files, music, movies, documents etc.

2. Service providers win.  People no longer store anything on digital hardware devices - multiplication and overlap on different devices makes no sense.  People store everything online, and use their mobile/convergence device, home cinema system, home fridge etc. to access this information - seamlessly and flawlessly.

3. Google, Yahoo, MSN and the like in turn become 'databanks' - much like financial Internet banks - who look after/manage your 'life’s worth' (for a healthy sum of course).

4. Databanks and financial banks start to merge, generating a kind of life management service provider that looks after all of your personal stuff.

5. Meanwhile, the virtual world interface starts becoming applied to the real world.  Your mobile is akin to a mouse in everyday life - you point it at real objects such as hotels, restaurants, people, and the like, and it delivers real time information on price lists, menu options, reservations, latest offers,  etc.  It also becomes a great way of storing everyday information, across shopping, health/fitness routines, study and the like.

6. The above model develops so that it’s possible to book reservations, pay for goods etc. from passing observation. Even other people’s clothes become accessible via a little ‘point and click’.  Consequently, everyday people become sponsored by brands as real life walking mannequins.

7. Mobile's wither.  Instead, small microchips become inserted into your finger and earlobe (serving ear/voice/navigation functions), whilst contact type lenses become your 'visual screen'.  People’s lives become digitally enhanced with ‘integrated’ music, sat nav, and various other luxuries.

8.  The real world now becomes an advertising medium in itself.  Incoming virtual ads are littered throughout the urban environment which you can choose to reject/accept at your leisure.  Likewise, ‘virtual urban spam/graffiti’ now supersedes the conventional stuff.

9. Everyday life becomes akin to a computer game - should you desire it.  Good behaviours/deeds/rewards in the home and at work score points, and somewhat surprisingly, the whole idea turns out to be an excellent motivational and personal development tool across parenthood, work life, health/diet etc.

10. With the future chugging along nicely a lifestyle polarisation takes place, with a small niche group determined to ‘live out’ life's former luxuries of magazines/comics, brick phones, vinyl music, VHS video, Tetris, and a good ol surf on ‘Google Retro’.

Reconsdering optimism ... even more

My follow up to Rob's interesting observation, as an elabouration of my previous post ...

I certainly am a believer of communications shifting cultures - not individuals - but I also think that content is not 'decoded' universally in a media neutral vacum. It's decoded in a social context and that's why the media vehicle is still important, as it 'frames' the meaning of the content if you like i.e. they're inextricably bound up and interlinked. Thus I think it's ultimately about how content 'and' delivery resonates with culture - not just the former. So it's a kind of more all-encompassing socio-cultural approach if that makes sense

Reconsidering optimism a little

Interesting post on Brand New from Gareth the other day about the future health of advertising that got me thinking.  The basic jist of his argument was that ad agencies will live on because

- what matters in communication is content - not it’s delivery
- ad agencies make the best content
- as media fragments people will filter the stuff that is most interesting

But on the proviso that they

- make sure content is culturally relevant and socially significant
- make interesting stuff generally

Whilst I agree that some ad agencies are masters of content, and that cultural relevance, social significance and interestingness is important for advertising’s future health, in the spirit of healthy (and hopefully constructive) debate, I feel somewhat less easy with the 'content is all that matters' thesis.

I think there’s something to be said for the (rough) phrase 'it’s not just what you say, but how you say it'.  I mean, content is critically important – and content from the likes of W&K, CPB, Strawberry Frog et al. is generally great - but I still think you can’t divorce the meaning of the content with the meaning of the media/delivery.

Perhaps an obvious distinction is the difference between TV and cinema, and would the infamous Apple 1984 spot be what it is today if hadn’t been aired just the once at the Superbowl?  I actually feel sorry for my many great TV ads – the Honda’s, The Bravia’s – because I actually feel there’s a certain stigma around the ‘TV medium’ generally (especially for today’s youth) that can cast a shadow over the content.  I’m even conscious that sometimes I find myself chuckling at something online which, if I really thought about it, might evoke a more cynical reaction through the TV set.  Some of the Nike stuff for example, simply just works better online. 

In part it’s because the TV medium is a dated technology and perhaps perceived to be ‘trying hard’ to interrupt/persuade, but also because, for mass awareness in prime viewing, the ad’s are also being ‘co-enjoyed’ with all the other ‘non-intended’ viewers e.g. dad, grandma knitting et al.  That’s a reason why I think YouTube works well – it feels more like active viewing and thus culturally relevant.  I also think there’s a ‘social network’ element that can add positive meanings to an ad when it comes from a credible source – it feels more natural and less contrived.  The passing on of TV ads through blogs seems to work great for example.

In moving onto a kind of optimistic future outlook for advertising like Gareth then, I’d also like to pick up on his point about media fragmentation – but whilst also invoking my point outlined above.  Ironically, I actually feel that whilst media fragmentation initially harmed advertising it could be its future saving grace.  As media converges – especially the TV with the phone/blackberry/computer – it should allow motion advertising to shake off the handicap of the television context, and allow it to reap the rewards of a cutting edge modern media, more relevant viewers, social networking effects, and the opportunity to save/replay (pro)actively at one’s personal leisure.  Great stuff eh?  And as a ‘curator’ of ads myself, sure hope it happens sooner rather than later…

Quirks of Brighton

Ventured down to the quirky retailscape of Brighton a few months back.  Here's a sample of my more interesting discoveries ...

bet even Linda McCartney didn’t have a pair of these

the hemp seed has blossomed into a nice hemp shop

Brighton takes Nike Air trainers to a whole new level

'Juice and stuff' - vagueness is 'clearly' the new clarity

a bit concerned that Jesus is akin to ‘zero culture’

ladies, if you don't pull in Brighton, all is not lost ...

the future is 'geographical compression': there's no need to ever leave your house ever again

if only every shop could distill its brand essence like this one.  Well, bar a few dingy parlors in Soho perhaps ...

'The Dumb Waiter Experience' ... is this not the best shop name .. like ever, ever?

Bowie's rock 'n' roll b(r)and creationism!

“There was a distinct feeling that ‘nothing was true’ anymore and that the future was not as clear cut as it had seemed.  Nor, for that matter, was the past.  Therefore, everything was up for grabs.  If we needed any truths we could construct them ourselves.  The main platform would be, other than shoes, ‘We are the future, now’.  And the only was of celebrating that was to create it by the only means at our disposal. With, of course, a rock ‘n’ roll band.”

The above quote is from a book called Moonage Daydream: The Life of Times of Ziggy Stardust, which I highly recommend for any Bowie fans.  I Iove the reference to an unclear past/future and also think it's a great analogy for innovation and brand development, particularly from a cultural insight perspective (no bias here of course!).  Also kind of reminds me of this doodle - a personal favourite - that I came across a while back from Hugh on Gaping Void ...

                                              

Blog 2.0, literally

In addition to my About page, I feel compelled to confess that this is my second attempt at a blog.

Yes, to my dismay the first effort withered in 2005 as it was eating into my PhD study time. 

Whilst the PhD is still ticking over - alongside my full time job as a cultural insight person - I'm now back (with a vengeance!), and a more realistic 'blog rate' for good measure in 2007.

So, if I do disappear into my academic pothole from time-to-time, please bear with me; it's just a manic deadline thing.