Staying Relevant

BoingBoing has been following the exciting development and implementation of the One Laptop Per Child project and they came across another company - AsiaTotal - that wants to give FREE laptops to the developing world (OLPC laptops are $100). However, unlike OLPC, "the [AsiaTotal] machines' keyboards are lined with hotkeys that take their users to sponsors' retail websites." There are also some other major design flaws that limit usability, networking, and expandability.

I was initially incredibly excited, because the headline on the BoingBoing article read Free, ad-supported PCs for the developing world? and that had me thinking that private-sector companies had signed on to sponsor the OLPC project, perhaps realizing the publicity and reputation boost would be unbelievably good for brand image around the world.

But no...of course not. Instead what has happened is another incredibly short-sighted and downright ignorant move by businesses and marketers who just don't get it. AsiaTotal is basically selling people into commercial/economic slavery, and they are selling this point as a sponsor benefit! From the AsiaTotal webpage:

"For the Sponsor, particularly lead sponsors such as a country's telecommunications companies, the potential is immense. Not only will Sponsors benefit from a huge new market, but the social responsibility and impact of being involved with iT cannot be underestimated. Not to mention the fact that sole ownership of a hotkey ensures a level of brand loyalty that you could only dream about." [emphasis added]

This kind of branding practice is absolutely unethical...and yet this business model was so close to being something that would be applauded around the industry. Take the One Laptop Per Child project for example - affordable, well-designed machines that will no doubt help developing countries & people for $100. Combine that with a large, global company (or any company for that matter) like Starbucks (because I'm writing this in one right now). To provide 10,000 computers for developing nations, Starbucks only has to put down $100,000...chump change for a corporation that size. Starbucks, in turn, gets a massive amount of brand currency - good repute - that will no doubt increase the sales of frappuccinos world-wide and ensure a level of brand loyalty that AsiaTotal could only dream about. Stick a Starbucks sticker on each laptop sponsored and there you have it. While a person initially receiving the laptop might not make enough in a year to buy a peppermint mocha, their children or children's children will likely be better off and remember the investment made in their community.

This business model is similar to the sponsorship system found in international football (read "soccer" for most Americans). Sponsors benefit teams, which in turn benefit their communities and sponsors through reputation. In the OLPC example, the same model applies - sponsors benefit organizations, which benefit communities, and the reputation boost comes from the act of social investment. This is the model that I've been working on for disaster response and preparedness as well as open source branding. It's viable, proven, and jives with the current thinking on branding & globalism. However, based on the AsiaTotal example, it looks like there is still a lot of convincing to do.

Posted by glen! at 06:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I just visited the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) website today and noticed this blurb on the front page. I was so excited to see that this national body was actually working on the issue of disaster planning, rather than just disaster response through the arts.

"AIGA Disaster Relief Task Force
The AIGA Disaster Relief Task for is working to support Displaced Designer, extending the reach and effectiveness of this initiative so that no designer is left behind in the wake of a disaster. The task force is working to develop a framework that chapters can use to prepare for disasters in the future." [emphasis added]

I followed the link for more on the article and was slightly dissapointed when it took me to the AIGA Displaced Designer information page, which has been up since the Hurricane. Now, maybe I read a little too much into the blurb, and I don't mean to dismiss the Displaced Designer project (which is awesome), but I was expecting and hoping that the AIGA would realize its own ability for collaboration beyond that to raise money. Money is important, but if its put into use with bad ideas and bad planning (read, FEMA) then all the sacrifice, generosity, and good will put forth is lost. Organizations like the AIGA have an unbelievable network of creative people and business people, and yet their social initiatives only encourage designers to contribute posters to be shown on the AIGA website. How does this provide meaningful change?

There is an inequality of wealth and action here. It's time to start collaborating.

Posted by glen! at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm getting overwhelmed by trying to stay on top of what's NEW in the world of graphic design and branding. It's physically and mentally exhausting, and I'm beginning to realize that there is no sense to it. I'm sick of the "Word-of Mouth" and "Viral" and "Guerilla" and all that utter crap that tries to cram human behavior into a little box that can be measured and exploited. I think it's the labels that bother me the most, or perhaps it's the way the people who come up with the labels act - like they invented a fucking wheel that slices bread.

It's all very simple...KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE, KNOW YOURSELF.

Do a little research, live the brand, treat it with honesty, and perhaps some of that Madison Avenue stink will start wearing off.

Posted by glen! at 04:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I kind of surprised myself a little...

I usually frequent Grant McCracken's blog. "Why?" you ask. "Well, because it is awesome," I reply. He is usually right on the money about culture and creativity, and I find myself often agreeing with him. The point is, in general, I am not great at conversation...I go into a cold sweat when the lady at Chipotle asks, "black or pinto?" However, today I read a post on the aforementioned blog and I actually was able to send off a response to it in under 10 minutes! And it's mostly lucid and coherent to boot!

"I'm afraid I have more questions than answers, but perhaps that is a good thing to have...

I've been involved the last few years in exploring the capabilities of emergent systems and in particular their relation to aesthetics, both in the practical sense (beauty vs. ugly) and in the theoretical realm (good vs. bad). I think that the latter will have the most effect on the acceptance of emergent systems, especially by traditional establishments like media, business, government, etc. and this is why:

In an emergent environment like social software, is there a need for aesthetic judgement and, if there is (I personally think so) how are the values of good and bad created and exercised? Are they determined by the number of connections you have in a community (as in Friendster), or by the quality or diversity of those connections? If it is quality or diversity, then how are those measured and compared so that someone can arrive at an aesthetic judgement? Do they need to be measured or compared at all?

I firmly believe that we are witnessing the emergence of emergent systems such as social software, which you mentioned in the post. I also firmly believe that it is in the questions - the unknown, or "unknowledge" as the EAD06 conference put it - that real power and opportunity reside. In terms of marketing, this is completely opposite to the current model. Perhaps for marketers to change, they must learn how to manage their company's reputation, rather than image. Perhaps in the near future the phrase "meeting our numbers" will mean achieving positive rankings across most social software programs.

It is interesting to note that a corporation by law and definition is seen as a singular entity, as an individual person. Would it be crazy to posit, then, that this person could be an entry in Friendster, or other such network? This reminds me of Kevin Roberts Love Marks website, where people submit and rate brands. There is a wealth of opportunity in this arena, and marketers need to be bold and go in that direction, or else you are going to see a lot more art directors and graphic designers fill the vacancy."

Posted by glen! at 10:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Branding is all about having a nice conversation, and we all know that in order to have a nice conversation you have to listen.

Posted by glen! at 11:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Continuing from posts found here and here

"For years, I’ve wondered how most of the world ignored the Holocaust even though they knew terrible crimes were being committed against the innocent. How could people be so callous and unresponsive? I have contempt for such people. And then I realized with a chill that our time has been marked by events of incomprehensible brutality and evil, and I have done almost nothing. ... I am embarrassed by the possibility that another generation will point at us and say, 'How could they have been so callous and unresponsive?'”

Milton Glaser

The more we learn and model how cultures respond to emotion during disaster, the more we can effectively help those in need. Why emotion and culture? Simple: Are people rational when disaster strikes? No, of course not. Yet for some reason, the planning for disaster response expects the opposite. The Katrina disaster put this error in planning in sharp relief – the emergency planners did not account for much of the behavior that happened before, during, and after the event.

They did not understand the culture – A culture in which some people had cars and places to go while others had only their houses, if anything; a culture where communities rely heavily on word-of-mouth, where rumors travel quickly. They also did not understand the phenomenal impact of emotion on this culture. The media understood it, and exploited it to boost ratings (I found it so odd that news crews – vans, helicopters, cameras, lighting, etc. – could get in and out of NOLA with ease, but emergency personnel could not) The emergency planners also did not account for the effect of emotion on their personnel either. Fear and hysteria became so out of control that police officers left their posts, first-responders simply did not go in to some areas of the city, and security personnel were told to shoot-to-kill and were hyped-up for some kind of Mad Max shootout. I remember watching soldiers delivering food with their guns up, ready to fire, and Lieutenant General Russel Honoré, who DID understand the culture but was brought in to the situation late, was yelling at them to “put those damn guns down!”

This is why the disaster after the disaster happened. The people involved in planning expected that certain things, like everyone evacuating and/or taking shelter, would simply happen. Then, when these expected things did not happen, people on both sides – citizens in need of help, and those in positions to help them – were gripped with emotion (fear & hysteria) which was spread by the culture and the media.

In the most basic terms…this was a communication problem. And how do we solve the problem? By being able to understand cultures and emotions. So, what kind of person knows about communication and its relationship with culture and emotion? That’s right, designers…I’m looking directly at you.

Posted by glen! at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, the time has come once more...

I'll be working on a new web presence in the coming weeks, and I'm not quite sure how it will work out. What would you like to see?

Posted by glen! at 11:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)