Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
monovich

Are designers pompus asses?

Recommended Posts

If they do, its a pretty clever way to undermine the whole effort, not that it needed much undermining.

for the record, I'm not a part of any smear campaign... unless I'm an unwitting pawn.

 

To me the logo is old news, but the proposal if it is real, was just too much not to react to.

 

 

That proposal pdf is real. Sad, but true.

Gravitational field, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this is a joke, but assuming it's not, it's just the grown up version of what we all did in art school: Do what was supposed to be a month long project the night before it's due, then come up with a bullshit story about how you were inspired by people suffering in Tibet and the reproductive organs of the Guava tree, thus taking advantage of the universal art school phobia of calling bullshit on anything sufficiently "out there" or inspired by a subject approved by the Artists' PC council. OK, maybe it didn't work as well in the graphic design classes, but this was a slam dunk in the "fine art" courses. In this case, stuffy corporate executives might have a hard time calling bullshit on something so "thoroughly researched."

 

I've always thought a nice career change would be to consult as a creative bullshit filter. My sole purpose would be to ride the creative firms hired by my clients and make sure they're not pulling this sort of crap. I would probably be assassinated by the Art Directors' Guild or something, but it would be a fun gig up until that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Along with the pepsi logo sucking.. The tropicana redesign failure inevitably got this guy fired- http://www.nypost.com/seven/02242009/busin...nell_156670.htm

 

That article says - "Yesterday, Pepsi confirmed the authenticity of the document, which spread like wildfire through corporate marketing departments, but said it was part of a larger presentation."

 

So unless NYP is lying, yes it is true which just made me feel like

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope this is a joke, but assuming it's not, it's just the grown up version of what we all did in art school: Do what was supposed to be a month long project the night before it's due, then come up with a bullshit story about how you were inspired by people suffering in Tibet and the reproductive organs of the Guava tree, thus taking advantage of the universal art school phobia of calling bullshit on anything sufficiently "out there" or inspired by a subject approved by the Artists' PC council. OK, maybe it didn't work as well in the graphic design classes, but this was a slam dunk in the "fine art" courses. In this case, stuffy corporate executives might have a hard time calling bullshit on something so "thoroughly researched."

 

I've always thought a nice career change would be to consult as a creative bullshit filter. My sole purpose would be to ride the creative firms hired by my clients and make sure they're not pulling this sort of crap. I would probably be assassinated by the Art Directors' Guild or something, but it would be a fun gig up until that point.

 

Here here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this one was picked up by Bad Science a month ago (a fascinating blog if you are interested in how media handles science)

 

I think something more interesting is going on here though. As anyone who is a student of Mad Men knows, the advertising business is all about creating a Reality Distortion Field, known colloquially as bullshitting or lying. The best liars are the best advertisers.

The guys who wrote the Pepsi doc know it is mumbo jumbo. The client who reads the doc, probably suspects it is mumbo jumbo. What matters is not whether it is true, but whether it feels "truthy". Clients are all MBA students who have been schooled in the "sciencey" language of business school. They appreciate good jargon handled with confidence. They want an agency that can get inside their own heads and communicate in a way that they are comfortable with. This gives them confidence that the agency can also get inside the consumers head and communicate with them. The agency's job is to create the Reality Distortion Field for consumers that makes them want to spend good money on a bottle with a few cents worth of water, sugar, carbon dioxide and chemicals, convinced that they are getting something more.

 

We can sneer at the logo, we can sneer at the client doc (I am quite happy to do both), but that agency got the gig, that logo is on the bottles, and (unless Pepsi sales nosedive) that agency is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Understand your client.

Understand their consumer.

Ditch your scruples.

That is all you need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this one was picked up by Bad Science a month ago (a fascinating blog if you are interested in how media handles science)

 

I think something more interesting is going on here though. As anyone who is a student of Mad Men knows, the advertising business is all about creating a Reality Distortion Field, known colloquially as bullshitting or lying. The best liars are the best advertisers.

The guys who wrote the Pepsi doc know it is mumbo jumbo. The client who reads the doc, probably suspects it is mumbo jumbo. What matters is not whether it is true, but whether it feels "truthy". Clients are all MBA students who have been schooled in the "sciencey" language of business school. They appreciate good jargon handled with confidence. They want an agency that can get inside their own heads and communicate in a way that they are comfortable with. This gives them confidence that the agency can also get inside the consumers head and communicate with them. The agency's job is to create the Reality Distortion Field for consumers that makes them want to spend good money on a bottle with a few cents worth of water, sugar, carbon dioxide and chemicals, convinced that they are getting something more.

 

We can sneer at the logo, we can sneer at the client doc (I am quite happy to do both), but that agency got the gig, that logo is on the bottles, and (unless Pepsi sales nosedive) that agency is laughing all the way to the bank.

 

Understand your client.

Understand their consumer.

Ditch your scruples.

That is all you need to know.

 

By and large I think you are right, but I could forgive this entire exercise if it resulted in one simple thing: the creation of something compelling and beautiful.

 

By the way, if you haven't already it's worth checking out some of the booklets Paul Rand created to pitch his logo designs. He wasn't exactly pitching since he charged a flat fee (reportedly $100,000) and produced a single "take it or leave it" solution, but he knew how to walk a client through his process and show that his designs weren't just some random shapes. He also managed to do this with far fewer words and far more clarity than the example above. He must have been onto something, because his reality distortion field worked on the heavyweight champion of the world of reality distortion fields, Steve Jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By and large I think you are right, but I could forgive this entire exercise if it resulted in one simple thing: the creation of something compelling and beautiful.

advertising is about selling, not making stuff beautiful. Sometimes these things coincide; The unbeautiful Ron Popeil made his fortune by demonstrating his chop-o-matic on TV to bored housewives and clinching the deal by throwing in a free recipe book. He understood his customer.

By the way, if you haven't already it's worth checking out some of the booklets Paul Rand created to pitch his logo designs. He wasn't exactly pitching since he charged a flat fee (reportedly $100,000) and produced a single "take it or leave it" solution, but he knew how to walk a client through his process and show that his designs weren't just some random shapes. He also managed to do this with far fewer words and far more clarity than the example above. He must have been onto something, because his reality distortion field worked on the heavyweight champion of the world of reality distortion fields, Steve Jobs.

 

Steve Jobs never did an MBA, and self evidently understands clean, clear design. Suits at Pepsi need different handling.

Edited by basilisk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertising is about selling, not making stuff beautiful. Sometimes these things coincide; The unbeautiful Ron Popeil made his fortune by demonstrating his chop-o-matic on TV to bored housewives and clinching the deal by throwing in a free recipe book. He understood his customer.

 

 

Steve Jobs never did an MBA, and self evidently understands clean, clear design. Suits at Pepsi need different handling.

 

Again, I don't disagree, and I have no problem whatsoever with selling. I just think that since you're going through all this trouble anyway, how much harder is it to also produce something of value? I understand the dynamics that make it so this usually does not happen, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sao_Bento
advertising is about selling, not making stuff beautiful. Sometimes these things coincide; The unbeautiful Ron Popeil made his fortune by demonstrating his chop-o-matic on TV to bored housewives and clinching the deal by throwing in a free recipe book. He understood his customer.

 

 

Steve Jobs never did an MBA, and self evidently understands clean, clear design. Suits at Pepsi need different handling.

We do know that a Pepsi Exec ran Apple into the ground, and it took the return of Jobs to save it. Obviously Sculley had a lot of practice running Pepsi into the ground first - as do these guys.

 

>>The guys who wrote the Pepsi doc know it is mumbo jumbo. The client who reads the doc, probably suspects it is mumbo jumbo.<<

Does anyone think this approach helps the business? Does it make companies more willing to view advertising and anyone who works in the field as having something valid to offer?

To me, it encourages people to think of everything we do as bullshit based on lies rather than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that for the amount of money that companies like pepsi pour into advertising agencies, the agencies feel obligated to justify that expense by sputtering out these ridiculous brand guidelines / explanations. and then the brand managers go crazy with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that this won't even hurt Pepsi one bit. The name is just way too famous for consumers to even care about the logo. Probably a very tiny percentage (read: %0.000000001) will think that the logo sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...