11.21.2007
11.20.2007
IDEAS ARE GREATER THAN FACTS
Branding requires a personal touch. Without it, habit eventually succeeds loyalty. To much creative can cause a disconnect with an abstract message while a forced strategy with poor creative translates into a cold and sterile message. Strategy should dictate creative, but under no circumstance, be the creative.
11.15.2007
SHAPE WHAT YOU MEAN
Meaning in a material world with a perceived notion of ubiquitous knowledge, does not occur randomly.
We create relevancy and shape what we mean.
We create relevancy and shape what we mean.
YOUR STYLE SUCKS
Today someone mentioned my 'clean' style. Icky word. My style sucks and is relative to the objectives. If not, then perhaps I should cash in on a specific 'look and feel,'–never!
Style is a theory.
Technique is a perfect mistake.
What this means is; favorable atheistic looks are not a 'style.' Clean is not a style you can borrow from existing styles. "Style = Fart," as Siegmeister put it. Perhaps he meant style stinks, style is hot-air, style is transparent, style means nothing–style is relative. It is a short-lived set of subsystems based on a consistent use of visual experiences. People use it in the same context as, bright, vibrant and bold. Style is more a personal emotion then it is a visual system.
This does not mean the communication cannot be vibrant, exciting or contrastingly, elegant or subtle. These descriptors are closer to emotions then they are expressions and description of visuals. These are all perceptual end-results. A prospect does not instantly perceive; bold, exciting, bright, uplifting, benefit. Not in a context of something 'placed'. And not without an existing contrast ( a prior set of experiences ) to gauge the communication against.
Once the prospect has made a choice to look a little closer, they've established the relevancy of the message.
And consequently an emotional connection.
Keep the visual language simple.
Not simple-minded, but simple in comprehension.
A relative context that is easily understood by each prospect.
Effective is not a style nor is creative. I truly believe an agency ( given the chance ) would agree. Style, or in our case, a broader visual language established as a recognizable visual system, must be unique in order to survive. Truly 'ugly' work can survive as long as it remains consistent and true to it's initial-respective form. The more a campaign injects existing styles the more likely the end result equates to a drawing from a 5 year-old who has copied their favorite artist in tribute. ( Not that 5 year-olds aren't talented ;) As a result, it's going to be lost in the mix. Because there was nothing truly unique about the work. It was more disorienting then engaging.
Style is a theory.
Technique is a perfect mistake.
What this means is; favorable atheistic looks are not a 'style.' Clean is not a style you can borrow from existing styles. "Style = Fart," as Siegmeister put it. Perhaps he meant style stinks, style is hot-air, style is transparent, style means nothing–style is relative. It is a short-lived set of subsystems based on a consistent use of visual experiences. People use it in the same context as, bright, vibrant and bold. Style is more a personal emotion then it is a visual system.
This does not mean the communication cannot be vibrant, exciting or contrastingly, elegant or subtle. These descriptors are closer to emotions then they are expressions and description of visuals. These are all perceptual end-results. A prospect does not instantly perceive; bold, exciting, bright, uplifting, benefit. Not in a context of something 'placed'. And not without an existing contrast ( a prior set of experiences ) to gauge the communication against.
Once the prospect has made a choice to look a little closer, they've established the relevancy of the message.
And consequently an emotional connection.
Keep the visual language simple.
Not simple-minded, but simple in comprehension.
A relative context that is easily understood by each prospect.
Effective is not a style nor is creative. I truly believe an agency ( given the chance ) would agree. Style, or in our case, a broader visual language established as a recognizable visual system, must be unique in order to survive. Truly 'ugly' work can survive as long as it remains consistent and true to it's initial-respective form. The more a campaign injects existing styles the more likely the end result equates to a drawing from a 5 year-old who has copied their favorite artist in tribute. ( Not that 5 year-olds aren't talented ;) As a result, it's going to be lost in the mix. Because there was nothing truly unique about the work. It was more disorienting then engaging.
RIGHT TO COPY
The real value of the internet(s) lies within a system developed and leveraged by the individual. The intelligent application of learned knowledge, is the name-of-the-game. Copyright is being challenged heavily as this progresses. Consequently, marketers and brands ( the oh-so dirty word–commercialism ) will not survive in this model. User-generated content is intellectual property. A user has re-interpreted their experience with a product, service or message. And in doing so, this reinterpretation becomes their ( the user's ) respective property. Doing this in a participatory fashion, they develop a rich reputation built on idiosyncratic data that will then be reinterpreted by another user or discarded based on it's lack of merit. Another community would have made this possible.
Interoperability and mobility of content is subject to copyright, which is the only reason there is not a true mobility; learning what you want, when you want it or–discovering a new product, service or idea.
Ironically, users and companies are willing to use Google docs and Microsoft live for business purposes. Google and Microsoft both stipulate that they are not responsible for lost data and that they may use this data however they see fit. Interoperability and mobility of content is the responsibility of each user respectively.
The box is full of pinholes with a transparent wall.
The Copyright has become the Right-to-Copy.
Thank you–I work out.
NOTE: PDF is almost ready. Still playing catch-up. ;)
Interoperability and mobility of content is subject to copyright, which is the only reason there is not a true mobility; learning what you want, when you want it or–discovering a new product, service or idea.
Ironically, users and companies are willing to use Google docs and Microsoft live for business purposes. Google and Microsoft both stipulate that they are not responsible for lost data and that they may use this data however they see fit. Interoperability and mobility of content is the responsibility of each user respectively.
The box is full of pinholes with a transparent wall.
The Copyright has become the Right-to-Copy.
Thank you–I work out.
NOTE: PDF is almost ready. Still playing catch-up. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Imagine a brand landscape defined by the individual; the consumer, the prospect, the common surveyor–a marketplace that evolves organically based on consumer interaction and feedback. A company and their agency-both accountable for their products, services and ideas. Knowledge is growing directly in relation to the amount of people contributing to it without regard for social or economical barriers. Language barriers don't exist. Knowledge is systematic growth based on interoperation without ration. Mass communications leveraged by the individual. Products and services rising and falling on their own merits. Someone googles "sucker born everyday," every minute. Advertising talks too much, art requires no explanation and we live in the middle. Create relevancy.
