This time of year is all about conclusions. I packed away my notebooks for the semester, gathered my belongings for Christmas vacation, and recollected this years improvements. AdWeek's blog AddFreak concluded the year by displaying the 30 Freakiest Ads of 2010. Why not the most heart-warming ads of 2010? Or the most beautiful? This section is no surprise to me. People want freaky, whether it be gory, sexual, or bizarre, this is how brands garner consumer attention. Number four on the list, was True Clean Towel's commercial depicts a man rubbing a disembodied scrotum all over himself, as if it were a towel. The commercial (below) is disturbing, and strangely effective. True Clean Towel gets right to the point: "know where your towel has been." The commercial is nonetheless enhanced by the classical music in the background.

Long adored candy brand, Snicker's introduced another bizarre commercial which made it to number five on the list. The character, "The Snickers Lady" who looks more like Divine from Pink Flamingos than a typical brand mascot, eerily touches the face of the shopper and throws Snickers into her shopping cart. The logic behind this seems unusual. Why would you want to scare someone into buying candy? Alas, this is the platform for most brands today. Provocation is used as a form of stimulation. A model eating a Snickers would simply be too trite. Snickers is aggressively (like the Snickers lady herself) telling you to buy Snickers. This is no longer the age of passivity.

The National Domestic Hotline's commercial won first place. To deem this ad as "freaky" is only to reduce it. This commercial has a strong message, and although I initially put off by the visuals, the ad has a way of blending what is provocative, and what is legitimate. Young & Rubicam (The Agency that designed it) used provocation to depict something quite real. The graphic content, is only graphic in the sense that it is present. There is no real violence depicted, so in that way it isn't off-putting. Ultimately, the sadness of the ad, triumphs over the provocation.


I have always felt frustrated by the lack of subtlety in advertising. But through these ads, I have found that it is not only necessary at times, but often effective. Whether these ads are humorous, confusing, or even sad, they are reflections of our culture, and what grabs us as consumers.

Food: Both High & Low Culture

Irving Penn's still life for Vogue


Food, like all other commodities has not escaped the unforgiving grasp of technology. With technology, comes the inevitable desire to collaborate and mix disciplines. While, food is not necessarily mixing other disciplines, it is indeed advocating the use of "unconventional" ingredients, and making it readily-acceptable through the use of technology. In a New York Times article, it was stated that chefs ages 18 to 34 (larger than the young adult bracket!) are more likely to find recipes online than in a cookbook. These websites suggest extensive recipes for these basic ingredients, some that go beyond the ingredients primary intention. Take Kellogg's cereal for example. In the morning, when pouring my bowl of corn flakes, I was surprised to see a recipe for Double-Coated Chicken on the side of what I thought was my culinarily consistent box of cereal.

While this example made my stomach churn, the unconventional use of conventional food is taking place in a gourmet sphere as well. Take for example, the popular television show Top Chef (On Bravo). One of the challenges in the show in last spring's season was to make a considerably gourmet meal out of Kwik-E-Mart products. The outcomes had mixed reviews from the panel, over all, they enjoyed the maple banana bread pudding the most, leaving the Cheeto's macaroni with grilled slim jims and tomato soup, and crispy rice cake in clamesco sauce as close seconds.

While the Kwik-E-Mart challenge seems extreme (as it was to test the young chefs) Many New York Eateries, such as No. 7 Sub which recently opened at The Ace Hotel, are mixing both high & low culture. For example, you can order a sandwich with potato chips and pickled jalapenos, alongside the more coveted fontina cheese. The high brow /low brow food culture is spreading in metropolitan areas, and quickly. This spread, as are most spreads is the result of technology. Television, the internet, and even basic advertising (as i noticed on my Kellogg's box) are acknowledging the desire to make use, and embrace more conventional foods.

With food however, the taste seems to be the most deciding factor. While the sandwich from No.7 proved to be a tantalizing amalgamation of flavors, not everyone feels that "everyday food" pleases their taste buds. In response to Kellogg's "Honey Flaked Chicken" recipe, "Rooshka" writes: "So Bad. It was way too sweet and soggy. Nobody at the table liked it."

Everyone knows that the reputation of cigarettes have vastly changed. What used to be seen as a product of leisure, is now a product of cancer. One of the major risks associated with cigarette smoke, is not the self-inflicted harm, but rather the dangers of second hand smoke. This danger is mostly expressed through the pure and innocent demeanor of children. Here, we have a 1950's ad, which display an innocent child requesting his mother to light up a cigarette. On the contrary, approximately 60 years later, the FDA has released a series of Ads which explicitly, and alarmingly, display the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. These warning labels will be released by June 22 2011. Take for example, this image below. There is an absence of the child in the picture, which allows the consumer to find the product more harmful. More provacatively, the FDA has decided to include images of children unwillingly subjected to their parents second hand smoke. The child, although it is seen in cartoon form (which may or may not perpetuate a sense of extreme detachment) is blatantly being harmed by its Mother's smoke. Is this an extreme step to take for the FDA? Or are cigarettes continuously undermined? I, personally, have grown up in an age where cigarettes were never condoned. Yet, I still witness smoking on a daily basis (and have admittedly been guilty of it myself.) Has the FDA simply realized that advertising might be the key to awareness?

What is surprisingly, the biggest change in tobacco advertising in 25 years (Ad Age) is causing quite a bit of uproar from the cigarette manufacturers. Industry leaders such R.J. Reynolds, and Lorillard, have already stated that such advertising will "obscure the companies brand name." (Ad Age)

The question that comes to mind is: does the FDA have the "right" to do this? Is the problem that people are unaware, or that they are ambivalent? Or, are people still bogged down by the idea of looking good with a cigarette? Each packaging is equipped with a category. A person can make a judgement about you through the type of cigarette you choose to smoke. If the aesthetics and reputations of cigarettes are being abruptly diminished by these warning labels, perhaps cigarettes will lose their seemingly timeless appeal.

Horror Posters: When is it too much?

Last week, the ASA (Advertising Standards Authority) received 77 complaints about the posters for the horror film The Last Exorcism. The poster, displayed above, shows a young girl hunched backwards in a dressed stained with blood. The posters were said to cause distress, and were "unsuitable to be seen by children" (The Guardian)

Although "The Last Exorcism" is a horror movie, how can we determine what is too graphic to be put on display? Does this poster just more publicly illustrate the amount of violence in the entertainment industry? Personally, I do not think I would look twice at this poster, which is why I find it curious that it received enough complaints to have it taken down.


As the content within a horror film, is often times, grotesque and thrilling, it comes as no surprise to me that the posters must be evocative of similar feelings. Take for example, the "Dying Breed" poster displayed above. This image, I find far more disturbing, as we are presented with a bevy of dismantled flesh compounded inside a baked good. Subsequently, one poster was banned in Australia, as they thought the content was just far too graphic for a bus shelter. (The Daily Telegraph) To what extent is the placement of these posters more problematic than the content?



The poster above ia advertising Chan-Wook Park's film, (which was released in April 2009) "Thirst". Similarly, both the trailer and poster for this film were banned in Park's homeland of South Korea. The poster shows a priest in what looks like an uncontrollable sexual conundrum with a soon-to-be victim. What separates this poster from the others is that it is not gruesome, or horrific for that matter but more so, displays a "lack of morality." Would a sexually implicit poster be banned in the U.K. or Australia? Or are the content of these posters too culturally relative to ban?

What seems to be a common argument, against the banning of such posters, is that information (whether it be graphic violently or sexually) is already readily available through the internet, or even the news. These posters take it one step further, by forcibly publicizing such "graphic" content. However, as the way we react to certain imagery and advertising is rapidly changing, to what extent are these posters too subjective to regulate?

China v. The West : The Battle for Luxury

The word "exotic" is undeniably problematic. It indicates something that only westerners can understand, something that is "outside" or "alien." Exotic places, or people are usually connoted with far away "foreign" places. Take for example the Louis Vuitton advertisement above. Nothing is learned about African culture, except that it is a place for the affluent and beautiful to vacation. However, as the economic statuses of each country fluctuate, so does the dominance over the luxury world.
China is growing to be the third largest luxury market in the world. As China's interest in the luxury market increases, our ideas of what is "exotic" are called into question. While in China, they may not be accustomed to using the word "Exotic" there is a large interest in Western Luxury Goods, as they are symbols of status and success.

"Chinese millionaires spend several thousands a year on luxury goods. According to the Hurun report, the average Chinese millionaire owns three cars and 4.4 luxury watches.The Chinese tend to like status symbols. They like to reward themselves and to show the world their achievements. Therefore, the Chinese prefer recognisable brands and products with logos."

Contrastingly, some argue that overly Westernized luxury products can be detrimental for their sales in China. What makes something luxurious in China, may not be the same as what is luxurious in the west.

China, which has made its mark as an extremely ambitious society, has arguably, a different taste for luxury than that of the west: "The USA is about showing you know/status, and China is about showing status but moving forward in society."(Huffington Post)

The Chinese fetishizing the West, could be seen as either an assimilation or a submission. (Or do the two coincide?) Furthermore, Does the West use China's interest artfully, or ignorantly? Some say that western luxury brands are changing their advertising aesthetic in order to appeal to Chinese cities outside of Hong Kong and Shanghai.(Reuters) On the other hand, some companies comment on China, without actually appealing to it. Take for example, the Dior advertisement below.

This advertisement entitled "Shanghai Dreamers" sends a very un-subliminal message. In the middle we have a seemingly Caucasian woman, in a what is presumably a Dior dress, surrounded by Chinese clones. This advertisement does not so much tap into the minds of the growing Chinese market, but further perpetuates ideas of unfair western exclusivity. China, who seems to be handling their economy better than most nations, should be given a little more credit within Advertising.

It seems that Luxury Brands are both struggling with and indulging China as their population of young millionaires continues to rise. Whether or not China will make the West "exotic" is unkowable. What can be foreseen, is China's undeniable and powerful presence in the luxury world.

good, bad, and boring

Successful brands, commercial or luxury, have a logo that is memorable and iconic. Obviously, this varies from the concept behind each product or brand. As many of you may have noticed GAP, the popular clothing company has changed their logo. GAP has been upping the quality on their clothing, transforming from a default retailer, to a store that provides upscale pieces for relatively inexpensive prices. However, just because the quality of clothing has become more refined does not mean that the logo has to go an under an extreme transformation, one that is in fact, boring. What GAP (or have the all-caps thing been cut too?) had in mind was probably simple, elegant, minimal, but what they actually produced was something that was ordinary and elementary. Except for perhaps the blue miniscule window near the P...maybe that is their way of honoring the logo of the past.If this were the aesthetic of GAP from the start, I have a feeling that they would not be as lucrative of an industry as they are today.

Helvetica, the font chosen for this new and improved logo, is one of the easiest fonts to read. This idea is solidified in Gary Hustwit's documentary titled "Helvetica". The marketing team at GAP probably saw this and were astonished that they had not decided to make the switch earlier. The truth is, this logo looks as if it could have been made on MS Paint.Helvetica, while it is pleasant to read while running around in the subway, or reading directions might not have the same effect on a large clothing brand. Helvetica, was created to be "a jack of all trades", as seen in this Business Week article. It is a font that is malleable. It is indicative of simplicity, but only when contrived appropriately. Take for example the Muji logo above. This store, which has a multitude of products (some household, some apparel) delivers a simple logo, that is aesthetically pleasing, and reads with confidence. The Muji logo also tongue-in-cheek, because Helvetica is a "commercial typeface" Muji uses it to make a commentary on commercial branding. (Business Week)

Believe it or not, Brands can succeed without Helvetica. As it has been established it is not the typeface that dictates that longevity of the brand, but a logo as an icon which understands what the brands primary buyers want. For example, take this Brooks Brothers logo. The typeface is a custom one (but most identifiable to Edwardian Script) and signifies elements of exclusivity and elegance. Furthermore, the sheep hanging above the lettering serves as a humorous observation on commerce. This logo has stayed true to its demographic. By hopping on the Helvetica bandwagon, GAP made this font seem trite. On their Facebook wall they boast that they love their logo but are open to alternative designs. This would be the time to take advantage of the internet as a conversation, and provide alternatives.

ASPIRATIONAL ADVERTISING V. INHERIT ADVERTISING

We as consumers understand (whether it is conscious or not) that a product cannot fully survive as a product unless it has a "world" to live in. This world is exclusively presented through an advertisement. These worlds vary greatly from demographic to demographic.

Aspirational advertising dominates the luxury marketing world. Such advertisements are equipped with signs of wealth, leisure, and most importantly beauty. As new media expands in front of our very eyes, these images are vitalized through the use of video.

Take for example, this POLO by RALPH LAUREN FALL 2010 Advertisement:

While entering this world is not a personal aspiration of mine, it is clearly perpetuating ideas of exclusivity and wealth. Happiness seems to be secondary in the world of Polo, as the models only give us a smug smirk. But, perhaps they know we'd all be dying to have that Irish Setter by our side?

Inherit Advertising, for lack of a better word, is practiced by companies and brands that do not promote exclusivity (I am not disagreeing with this, as it is probably necessary for the survival of luxury labels) but rather, make products that are "ordinary" humorous, visually appealing, and desirable.

While this Snickers video is not necessarily up to date, it shows how a product regularly overlooked, can alleviate your hunger. A candy bar, though it is far from a hearty meal, surveys its necessity (or lack thereof) and makes a joke out of it.

Is there a way to combine these two forms of advertising? The answer is, yes. With the current economic state we're in, people are looking to combine the exclusivity of luxury, with the prices of the ordinary. The luxury market, which is almost entirely dependant on the fashion industry, is looking to become more accessible. One of the ways they are trying to do this, is to make the industry somewhat "season-less." Business Week touches upon this:

"Its got to be a dynamic business," Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts said in an interview. "So keep being dynamic is going to be a part of our long term success."

Because sales of luxury goods are rising fast in markets like Asia and Latin America "there has to be a large part of the line that's season-less," she added

The New York Times further reiterates the downfall of exclusivity through the subtraction of the runway show. Runway shows, which are run on exclusivity and social hierarchy, are now advertised for everyone to view on the web. Since these events are now becoming a part of the everyday (so to speak), perhaps the exclusivity will only exist within "worlds" like the one depicted in the Polo video. And maybe, in the coming future we will see a coercion between these two types of advertising.

How Fleeting is Luxury?

The economic crisis has brought luxurious lifestyles to halt. How this “change” in lifestyle is illustrated is very much debatable. It is said that the affluent are more concerned with longevity than extravagance. However, as the year winds down others are wondering: have the affluent actually cut back, or are their shortcomings only marginally less luxurious?

An article in Business Week offers a medium:

“Despite the biggest one day drop in the Dow since 1987, tonight in Manhattan restaurants will still be full, Town Cars will still be waiting by the curb and Champagne bottles will still be uncorked. But maybe there will be fewer orders of truffles and more of chicken, some people might take a cab instead, and the Champagne may be by the glass instead of the bottle.”

Those who find this extremely relative example of “cutting back” to be punitive, might find solace in the Wall Street Journal article entitled “Is L.L. Bean Driving the Runway?”:

“"When the economy fell apart, the Euro look of skinny black men's suits" did, too, said designer Michael Bastian, whose own line of rugged sportswear is heavy on shearling and gray flannel.”

What this article offers is not the previous notion of “champagne by the glass” conservation, but conservatism through fashion perpetuated by a look that is modest and neutral. Furthermore these so-called “heritage brands” are collaborating with high-end designers in order appeal to a demographic that is both savvy and modest. However, another Wall Street Journal argues that wealthy consumers are not interested in feigning modesty, but commanding respect through their self-image:

“Fully 28% agreed that their favorite brands “allow them to stand out from the crowd” and 20% said the brands “command respect from others.”

Contrastingly, an article on Mediapost.com suggests that although luxury market sales are increasing, the wealthy consumers are remaining cautious:

""A recession is not only an economic event," Pam Danziger, president of Unity Marketing and lead researcher, writes in the report, "it is also a cultural one. When affluent consumers believe that a recession is on and might continue for a year or more, they are far more likely to take steps to curtail unnecessary spending."

While affluents account for just 20% of U.S. households, they spend more than 40% of the $4 trillion spent at retail every year."

These conflicting views share one thing in common: the luxury market manifests itself in new forms, because it is a market valued by its consumers. The market, as expressed through establishments such as "The Heritage Brands" is malleable, but appeals more to the idea of conservation, than to conservation itself. Though our economy has been in crisis, I find myself wondering how luxury retail stores still hold their doors wide open, dropping their lavish prices only by the hundreds, or how lines keep forming outside of overpriced restaurants. Perhaps for some, the luxury party is never over.

The Varieties of The Movie Review

I felt inclined to read two different movie reviews on a movie I saw yesterday. Animal Kingdom was a movie I had been very much looking forward to seeing due to its diabolical mother figure. I had heard from many viewers, that she was one of “the most evil mothers in film they had ever seen.” Since this would be a quite a popular archetype to triumph, It quickly became number one on my movies-to-be-watched list. Contrary to the opinions I heard floating around, the mother to the Australian Gang Members did not hold a candle to even the Disney villains I grew up with. Nevertheless I rummaged through a variety of reviews and compared not only the opinions of the writers, but how they structured their review.

The Guardian’s lede took what I would like to refer to as a chronological approach, starting off with the opening scene of the film. As the contemporary art/crime thriller opens up with a docile teenager sitting next to his mother, who has overdosed on heroin, its understandable why such a lede would seem appropriate. The New York Times however, opened up the review focusing exclusively on Jacki Weaver’s (The Mother) character. “With bleach-blond mane, a glittering blue-eyed stare and ferocious smile, Smurf Cody (Jacki Weaver) is the mama lion to a terrific Australian gangster film “Animal Kingdom.” Compared to the Guardian’s approach: “We know we’re in for a different kind of family values story as we watch a teenager sitting next to his passed-out mother on the couch while some inane game show blares on the television in the background.” While I do not feel especially oriented to either of them, it is nice to see how two reviews are conveying similar viewpoints through different structures. Each opening sentence pertains to this idea of a false image, something quite jarring compared to what is ostensibly “normality.”

Writer A.O. Scott used provocation in his New York Times piece titled “Are Films Bad, or is TV Just Better?” writer A.O. Scott used provocation in order to grab my attention—and it worked! I was eager to find out exactly what he meant by this statement. It wasn’t until I reached the middle of the article that he asks his big question: “Will any of the movies surfacing this fall provoke the kind of conversations that television series routinely do, breaking beyond the niches to something larger?” While I think this is valid question, I felt it was slightly overdue. So then I wondered: when is the inverted pyramid “too inverted”? In other words, when has the journalist given too much fat around the meat of their article?

Exploring cultural criticisms, or reviews in art and film have ultimately provided the most enticing comparisons. While I have yet to see “I’m Still Here”, The Guardian’s Ben Child did not review the movie, but the questions and controversies surrounding it. What I enjoyed most about this review was how Child “answered” the big question that the film entails, revealing that the “documentary” is in fact, fake, stating that “’ I’m still here’ nears the end of its [Phoenix’s] publicity run.” While I think this article has a strong opening, I noticed that it concluded with a quote. Though I did not see this as necessarily ineffective, I saw it as a similarity in many articles. Does such an ending distinguish journalistic writing from typical non-fiction or essay writing?