heartbreaking: ethics & advertising

secretly, it's not a secret. i would give one of my toes to have lunch with Dave Trott if only in the hopes of sucking up some of his awesomeness through a straw and osmosis. i love his insights; i think his perspective on creative is empathetic and inspiring; i think that his circular logic and penchant to relate unrelated things marks thought processes i find enviable and intriguing.

but i did read his blog--as i do every day--and last week i read something that broke my heart a little. often times Dave will write something that will make me think; sometimes i will outright agree, sometimes it takes me a minute to see it, and i like that. but this i just couldn't come around to. and i'd let it be my own seething sadness until David Griner picked it up on AdFreak earlier today.

maybe it has something to do with how jaded i'm feeling lately. how everything can seem corrupt from the top down. but that's just it: from the top down. i want to believe that advertising doesn't have to be unethical and corrupt. that's one of the reasons i picked the shop where i'm at now. i want to believe that idealist kids are a good thing if only because it provides a steady stream of reality check; of honesty and integrity before the biz taints it and spits us out funny colours.

i don't want to believe that stealing is okay. because i don't think it is. being inspired by, and stealing, are two different things. most people can tell the difference, i would hope. but to outright take something just to get your first job? i know the first one's hard--and probably the 15 after it, too--but to be that unethical from the get-go surprised me, especially from a man whose creative thought i so intensely admire. it made me confused to find that such creativity couldn't find its own merit and outlet.

clearly his methods got him in the door, and his own talent carried him the rest of the way, to the respectable and successful place he is now. but i give kudos to his prior boss for flipping out. because accepting it would have set one more unethical precedent. i am hoping this emerging trend for transparency will create bosses and hirers who are looking for that integrity. not just a nice book. but then again, i am that kid.

"So you choose what works for you.
Either the means justifies the end.
Or the end justifies the means."

it's not about endings. it's not about Machiavellian meets Darwinian tactics.
it's about looking at my own face in the morning. i'm not saying he shouldn't be able to. i'm saying i couldn't. and that's just me.
he's the larger than life, epic adman of awesome. i'm just a girl in advertising.

[in other news: i'm also heartbroken because VICE sent me an email today to RSVP to an event TWO DAYS from now. if i'd had more notice, i could have gone. instead, i am missing going to a live taping of my hero, Kathleen Hanna. i am so depressed.]

somethin' about the way garyvee says douchebag

...just makes me feel all aflutter inside.



i found this via @TDefren's new post. in this video, Gary Vaynerchuk talks about passion and patience.

which is funny, considering both have the same Latin root, pati, meaning "to suffer." [HOL reference for you there, kids <3]

which is to say, garyvee [it just rolls so nicely, i have to type it like that] believes that if you don't like what you do--not even a little--STOP. just STOP. and do SOMETHING ELSE. even if that thing is smurfs. me, i don't buy into the monetization of a smurf blog, but hell, i believe him, and his Pinot Grigio Hour. that's where the passion comes in. life is too short to be doing something you hate. yadda yadda motivational speech.

[hey does it sound like that stuff your generation sold my generation and now you want to take it back because we all think we're genuinely entitled to that Pursuit of Happiness? i thought so--but there's a catch.]

yeah, that patience thing, which has to do with that suffering thing i mentioned earlier. "how do i monetize my new Smurf Empire?" you may ask, and he answers: by doing some serious damage between the hours of 7pm and 2am, before you pass out, go to work, take an hour break to "kiss the dog," and do it all over again. so that you still have to go to work. to make the money. to do serious damage. to make your new Empire.

i'm not at all belittling garyvee's view. i think it's powerful, poignant, and necessary. its passion is inspiring and the message is spot-on. but i've also heard it before.

i think that, reading between the lines, it's also a message that requires you to keep that passion when you're up until 2am working on the new Empire, have barely seen family or friends, and still aren't so keen on the job you're spending 8-10 hours of daylight on. the message is to feel like he does on that stage, only every morning. and i think that's the hardest part. not just saying "I Quit!" as Audience Man #1 did, but sticking out the suck for the better ahead.

not the interest, not the late night Empire, and not the years of development.
but keeping the passion, and acquiring the patience, through those times of suffering.

Riot's day in brands. & analysis thereof.

[the brand montage a la dear jane][see larger logos]

rather than do a TYPICAL day in the life of Riot brands, i decided to do an EXACT day in the life. and analyze what all that means to me. i realized in the doing that it wasn't exactly what i thought it would be, nor was it exactly representative. this is MAY 23 08. thoughts below. anything marked with an asterisk didn't have a Google-able logo.

THE BREAKDOWN: AM WAKEUP
08:15: verizon • LG
08:18: DELL • Adobe Photoshop • IE
08:30: Crest • Oral-B • Dove • Gilette • Axe • Tom Ford
08:33: lolo* • rave* • Saucony • TWLOHA • Style&Co
08:40: FOX • Sephora • Neutrogena • CoverGirl • Benefit • Urban Decay • MAC
08:50: Nike • Nissan Maxima • Fueled by Ramen

THE ARRIVAL: AM WORK
09:00: Apple • N.Design Studio • Intellimerge • Firefox • Entourage • iChat
09:04: Cafe Du Monde • Stop&Shop Tea • Domino Sugar
09:11: Apple • Firefox • Google • WordPress • Blogger • Twitter
10:05: Firefox • Twitter • Amazon • TextEdit • Verizon • LG
11:35: iTunes • TextEdit • Firefox • Twitter

LUNCH TIME+: AFTERNOON DAZE
01:28: Verizon • LG • Altamira* • Dickies • MasterCard • HSBC
01:50: Gino's* • Gatorade • Chase • HSBC • Twitter
02:11: TextEdit • Quark • iChat

FREEDOM: POST-WORK WIND DOWN
05:00: Verizon • LG • Nissan Maxima
05:14: DELL • IE • MSN • Chatroom*
06:45: Tina's II*
08:32: Verizon • LG
08:45: DELL • IE • MSN • Chatroom*
10:06: Verizon • LG
10:12: DELL • IE • MSN

GET THE FLOCK OUT OF HERE
11:16: Hyundai • Tom Ford • Nike • Lily Flanagan's • Blue Moon
11:43: Hyundai • Delicious • Subculture • Sambuca • More Sambuca
12:20: Black Haus • Peach Schnapps* • Southern Comfort • Rose's Lime
02:47: Hyundai
03:10: DELL • IE
03:20: Ford Taurus • Taco Bell • Ford Taurus • Crest • Oral-B

BEDTIME! Somewhere around 4AMish.

now, here are the interesting things when i consider a literal day in brands. as in what i actually used and did not use. this gets a little personal, but i promise there are deductions.

1 -- THE UN-BRANDS and their sneaky, sneaky ways: that particular day, i had a very, very casual friday. i was supposed to head onto the LIRR directly from work to see my very ill best friend in New Hyde Park, so i was in jeans, a tank, and kicks. not necessarily my daily work attire. not to mention, i couldn't have told you what bra brand and undies i was wearing that day--or socks. even though i'm usually a Vikki's Secret girl, and wear Journeys socks, i know i wasn't doing that. not to mention, i have no idea what brand of toilet paper my agency uses, nor have i any idea their faucet's brand, etc. as much as we are branded, there are still small simple places. i don't look down and see "Cottonell" imprinted on my toilet paper.

2 -- DEVIATIONS & SACRIFICE, or, Change of Plans: the best laid plans of mice and men. what happens when your brands aren't there for you? so i had to do laundry. so i didn't have Vikki's undies or Journeys socks. i had some nameless undergarments and borrowed my mom's socks. my agency was out of Tazo Earl Grey and PNGTips tea (the HORROR) so i had to drink Stop&Shop (sacrilege). i couldn't make it to my HSBC bank, so i had to use Chase, which is a bastard for charging $3 to take out my own cash and $1.50 to transfer funds. i don't like DELL or IE, but that's my laptop right now while i'm saving for a Mac(Black)book. i wear my Reverie Duel hoodie every day--except that one, because i couldn't find it. so my choices were reflective of my day, not my normal brand usage, and the psychology of pressure.

3 -- THE LIES ABOUT daily brand use: just because i use you daily, doesn't mean i'm loyal to you, or ever really like you. ie: DELL, case in point. Dove, too, whom i hate but it was there in the house. also, i only own 1 Dickies item (my wallet) and while i see the logo every day, it does nothing for me. likewise with Nike (my bag is my only Nike purchase) and FOX (my makeup bag--that's all). some things are like breathing, and i don't have to think about them--like my N.Design desktop at work. i use it, but i don't change it or interact with it, though i like the art. unlike, say, my ugly DELL's desktop, which i made using Audrey Kitching photos. yes, Lily Flanagan's is a usual haunt for me--but usually only on thursdays; had i gone to New Hyde Park, i never would have been there. to boot, all 3 cars mean nothing to me--they belong to (in order) my mom, my other best friend, and my partner.

4 -- ON TO PROM QUEENS & star quarterbacks: then, on to what really matters. what brands am i loyal to that i do actually use every day? what appears here that is typical of me, that i do think of as my personal "prom queen" brands? my alcohols, of course. i'm very picky with that. so Blue Moon, Sambuca, swedish fish shots, and Soco Lime are all pretty representative. add in Magic Hat #9, Goldschlager, Patron, Jose Cuervo, Ketel, and Reyka, and that's the short list of things i'll drink without spitting on you. my get-ready gear--Axe deodorant, Tom Ford Black Orchid perfume, my makeup, my daily tea. my style: never leave without at least a To Write Love On Her Arms button; Delicious shoes are club footwear of choice (Pleaser, too). my work habits--i need Apple, Adobe, iTunes, iChat, Twitter, Blogger, Firefox, Amazon, TextEdit. the real prom queens aren't necessarily hip; just what i can't live without.

the value isn't in the daily use, but instead in what i'd miss sacrificing. i wouldn't miss my Oral-b toothbrush, and i wouldn't cry if i had to switch from Crest. if i had to trade my Post-Its for Staples brand, that's okay by me. but don't you take my personal prom queens. don't you take Tazo Earl Grey from me; you'll be getting a fight. and don't you DARE take away my cell phone. its batteries died early yesterday. i was without it for 20 minutes. i cried a little--inside.

is there a person in the house?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. AND... NO?

"In other words, if everything else in a consumer's life is connected through digital, shopping should be, too."

if i want to be alone and not interact with people when i shop, I SHOP ONLINE.
i don't need to get on a car, in a subway, on a train, to go visit a store without people. granted, it's "less employees," not "no employees," but what's the difference? those people who still are employed will find better ways to "use the time" they're being paid for than to perform customer service, which requires patience, effort, and understanding. why do that when a computer can do it for you? besides, it's not like we need more jobs available anyway...

can i keep saying NO any more?

how many times do you call a phone of a company now and get into an endless automated loop about some stupid thing you never wanted to tell them just because you can't get a HUMAN on the phone? a human who could have answered your question in 2.5 seconds? i don't want to stare at a screen to discern my purchasing protocol. if i'm not doing it online i a) want a personal opinion about the product or b) i procrastinated and need said item NOW, at which point i'm not asking any questions anyway: my mind is made up. removing employed people from stores is a surefire way to lose traffic to said store. they could just buy online.

we are already disconnected. we are seeking connections via pixels. welcome to the age of mass communication. mass disillusionment. mass isolation. and you're just making it worse rather than fostering those connections. if anything, this technology should be a tool used by employees to help customers. like the computers in Borders or Wawa or your local tech-savvy deli. but for the love of interaction and humanity, don't lose the people. sometimes i leave the house just to see another face.

beware the stone gods.

the ... century

from here, found here.

i like it a lot. my one thought, however:
if
the 20th century = mass production for mass consumption
factories, cars, televisions, and fridges

then not
the 21st century = mass innovation

i still think it's missing the point a little. innovation is the sideproduct.
the "cashification" and "monetization" capable aspect, if you will.

it is
the 21st century = mass creation for mass communication

people want to communicate and connect, and so share. not innovate; that's secondary.

(brand, celeb) tags... and why.

so, despite being one of the first people to know/use the new Noah Brier app (see? see? sneaky cred there right... haha), i haven't commented on it yet. i wanted to say something useful other than 'oh, well, that's cool, check out brand tags.' unfortunately my analysis takes a few days.

--reaction #1:
"this is really cool."
again with the "duh" moments, it makes sense that how people perceive your brand is what the brand is worth. i learned that in my second year of college. but it was an innovative way to track these thoughts people have around brands.

--reaction #2:
"this could go really badly."
meaning, anytime you bring '1 word/phrase' + 'anonymity' into the picture, you wind up with some pretty stupid results. but since the feedback works like word clouds (even if the popular words get so big it interferes with my screen), i suppose it evens out. would have been nice to be able to say why, i chose a word, etc, and have those explanations link from the main tag cloud. that way whomever wants to know more is able to do so, and perhaps get perspective on why an experience was great or poor for me. i understand the virtues of the concise nature and the top-of-mind response, but a secondary optional screen asking why would also be helpful.

--reaction #3:
"enter celebtags."
i don't know if celebtags functions as the Dorian picture to brandtags or vice versa, but the point remains: similar implementation, and yet, the responses are vastly different. what does one say about the other? why does every female celebrity get tagged with slut or whore or bitch? why does this not have a way of asking people to think about their assumptions...?

understandably, thanks to tabloids and the nature of being in the public eye, celebs are more often fodder for malignant feedback than any other entity short of Wal-Mart. and even then, if folks had to choose between hating Paris Hilton or hating Wal-Mart, i'm not sure who would win (lose?). and here, in case you're not sure, you can actually punch out the celebs you hate most. ...yeah. anyway.

similarly, people are brands. that's also another "duh" that not everyone has embraced. like brand value, there are reputations and representations; not always are the two in sync. is hating Paris Hilton the same as hating Wal-Mart? yes and no. even as we try to make brands our "friends" and affable, people-like entities, celebs are actual people. this produces very different top-of-mind results.

Wal-Mart responses run the gamut from american to white trash, south park to nascar, affordable to cheap, evil to value. juxtaposing these statements shows the range of emotion and perception--all of which may be true, but certainly there is a range. things that are affordable to some are low quality to others. evil to some is a necessity in some areas where there are no other supermarkets.

yet, Paris Hilton responses are much more flat and one-sided, ranging from airhead, bimbo, and bitch to sexual references, skank, slut, whore, herpes, and blow job. "rich" appears but small, and "heiress" appears once, but even smaller--only one person said it. this does not by far offer the whole picture, regardless of how you feel about Paris Hilton.

is this because you can interact with a brand and you can't interact with a celebrity? i can walk into a Wal-Mart and have an experience, but i can't party with Paris Hilton. does that give me a more limited understanding of Paris Hilton? or does it not matter--i have perceptions of brands i've never interacted with, like Sonic. we get 5 or 6 Sonic commercials by me and the nearest Sonic is in New Jersey. i have never been in one, but i still have brand thoughts about it. more along the lines of "far away" than "blow job," however.

a parting gift: the George W. Bush worldwide brand.