The changing face of advertising

I was lucky to attend a creative networking lecture this week by Patrick Burgoyne, the editor of creative review. I was excited to see what the lecture would be about and was surprised that the topic of the lecture was exactly the same as my proposed dissertation topic. My question is: What implications des the instantaneous nature of social media have on brands which want to develop their identity? In particular, is the recent Gap campaign an example of how companies are trapped into never updating their current identities?

When researching my dissertation it is clear that if the consumer purchases branded products over commodity products they are probably buying the brands image, values and beliefs. If the brand changes, seemingly to the consumer overnight, then they will be instantly shocked by the abrupt change. This will in turn, create strong emotions. They were perfectly happy with the brand identity before, and they saw no reason to change the logo so why have they? Thousands of people jump to the conclusion "I could have designed that myself in Microsoft Word" This I doubt, i'm a graphic designer and I struggle to even move images in Word.

The consumer has become increasingly demanding with the increase of choice in the market. They expect a lot from global brands and importantly, they expect their opinion to be valid. Should Brand managers take into consideration the consumers instant reaction and stop the brand development (like Gap) or ignore the uproar and trust that their design is strong enough to ultimately improve the brands sales?

To answer this question we have to ask ourselves, is it a successful identity change or not? If we look back at Consignia (this was what the Post Office re-named itself in 2002) Market research showed that the consumers hated it, and most didn't know that Consignia was even part of the post office at all. This is probably the most important part of a re-brand, that the customers know the re-brand actually took place. TV shows jumped on the re-brand and recorded the audiences reaction and eventually the Chief Exec decided to scrap the name. If social media and blogging was around I doubt it would have taken over a year to make the decision to scrap it. It wasn't a successful rebrand.

I tried to find an example of when a re-brand has had initial hatred but eventually succeeded and a perfect example is the Guardian re-brand. There was mass outcry at how awful it was and how much of a shame it was to loose the traditional design for the new modern edition. Are audiences just reacting to the initial shock of a brand image change?

Bloggers loved the Herbal Essences re-brand and their sales increased by 20%, but they hated the Tropicana rebrand and they lost 20% of their sales. It seems obvious but these opinions are the opinions of the customers, so surely, Brand managers should have online reaction factored into their development plans? But what if the audiences are just shocked and can't see the future positive aspects of the change? Should Brand mangers be transparent about their plans to re-brand?

With the invention of online social networks it has become clear that there is a new need for companies to manage the consumer reaction to a re-brand more effectively online. I hope to answer this in my dissertation... watch this space.

baa baa black sheep

Love the what the flock campaign... its worked so well! Really intriguing, everyone was talking about it. It proves how shocking the fact that only 17% of students have used Cannabis in the last 3 months is to other students. It will hopefully make students think twice about using it if there immediate thought isn't "well, everyone else is doing it so why shouldn't I?" Its had its first positive mention in Creative review this week too.

Thackray museum

I recently visited the Thackray museum. It describes the history of medicine and Leeds and has many areas you can explore. I'd definitely recommend going! The best feature was the free-to-explore life like street where you can find more about your chosen character and what their life was like in the 1800's. You then travel into the medicine room to find out of your character can afford the medicine that will cure them. I really recommend it but maybe it is a little to gruesome for children, especially, the room that shows you what happens to 11 year old annie whose leg gets caught in a mill machine (they saw it off with no anaesthetic).

More Moorcroft please!

Over the summer I took a real interest in my family history, I found that most members of my family have at some point worked with pottery until the rapid decline of the industry in recent years. I visited the Moorcroft museum to find out more about the industry and was pleasantly surprised by the design of the products. It is way out of my price range but will definitely be on my wish list. My favoutirte is this piece by Kerry Goodwin depicting the Potteries in Recession. It shows a rain covered scene where the potbanks are closing, and relates closely to my families history with the industry. The colours are amazing.

From streets to tweets

Chris Osburn (Juxtapoz magazine) recently did a talk at Yorkshire creative networks event on 'streets to tweets'. He is a professional photographer based in London who photographs graffiti artists work and sells the photographs. This was seen to be quite controversial with some members of the audience, mainly the graffiti artists. The main question that Osburn put forward was: is the photograph adding to the image or taking away?

He argued his point with the photograph he took for graffiti artist Sickboy. Sickboy uses the image on his promotional material. He claims that his creativity arises from the way he takes the photograph. In this instance the girls add to the image as it depicts how audiences interact with the image. Is this an artform? The graffiti artists would say not. They claim that he is cashing in on others art and using the fact that the art is illegal and they can't make money from it to cash in himself.

However, the street artists are aware that they produce art that can't make money and will be removed, so is it fair for them to scrutinise people taking photos if it is in such a public place? Probably not, even if those photos make the photographer money.