Okay, unhealthy I admit it. I checked my Klout score. And so did you.
It was hard to resist every now and then. Just a little peek. How bad could that be? We’re human, cialis 40mg and we love to check our box scores for anything we do.
As a matter of fact, those dice are – and have always been – downright fuzzy. So I give you a fancy new infographic to explain the key questions we now face in social media after the storm…
Oh, and for the record, I lost 14 imaginary points myself. But who’s counting? Apparently not Klout.
Last week, approved the Ottawa Senators kicked off a minor media sweat-storm when they unveiled what they called their new “heritage jersey” – which obviously had the retro styling of a classic hockey sweater. Then, even the office of Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada (who still hasn’t written that hockey book) weighed in with a terse “PM says jersey”.
We Beg to Differ.
There. That was easy, wasn’t it?
Let’s be honest, this piece of modern hockey gear is really not summed up by either how we commonly use the word “sweater” OR the word “jersey”. But here’s why we think Canadians should be pretty stubborn about sticking to their knitting on this one.
The term “sweater” was invented to describe an athletic garment that you sweat in. Ever smell a hockey bag? That ain’t “jers” you’re smelling.
“Sweater” implies something that keeps you warm in winter – and hockey in its purest form is still played outdoors.
“Jersey” is what generic – mostly American – sports marketers want you to call it. Let basketball, football, and baseball have their “jerseys”.
Seriously, you’re going to take this guy‘s word for it ?
Author of “The Hockey Sweater” Roch Carrier “Jersey, I understood, was some stuff to do dresses for ladies. That was the ladies business. Mine was to rush to the skating rink in my hockey sweater . ”
As the person in my household who does all of the shopping and all of the cooking I took offense to this video. Implying that dads can only cook the simple things and Ragu is somehow going to help make that easier. Give me a break!
Meh. Now, as the guy in our house who also does all of the above, I get his complaint. But I didn’t take offense so much as just shake my head. What should have been a light, fun, and playful poke at the kind of guy who doesn’t help in the kitchen – and yes, they’re out there, and they totally deserve lampooning – instead comes across as an unfocused, whiney, un-entertaining, bitch fest.
The problem is not that it’s edgy, highly mom-specific, or even offensive. The big problem is that it’s BAD. Badly produced, awkwardly executed, and absolutely unlikely to get anybody to buy the freaking Spaghetti Sauce, much less laugh or pass this to their friends!
The good: General Mills hilarious Cheech & Chong trailer
Oh, to have been a fly on that wall at that pitch meeting. What were General Mills marketers (and agency, Publicis) thinking when this viral promotion moved from sideline conference-room chatter to the thing in the middle of the table, and then to production, and then to actual placement on the brand’s Facebook page, YouTube channel and a campaign microsite earlier this month?
I don’t know what they were thinking either, but it worked. For guys over 40 like me who grew up being shocked by Cheech and Chong’s in-your-face counter-culture humour (and secretly loving it) I think this campaign nails the tone, humour, and most importantly, the product pitch in this one. So while many will find it equally “offensive” to the Ragu campaign, this one will actually find an audience who will pass this on.
I think Chapman was wrong because he picked on the wrong issue in the Ragu campaign. I think Buss is just wrong.
How about you? Does the Magic Brownie thing go too far? Does Ragu actually hit the mark? Am I full of flaming spaghetti sauce?
I’m often critical of Canada’s efforts at country branding, look but in this case one of our national flag-bearing agencies nailed it. Totally.
The trickiest thing about truly great logo design is not to have your symbol say a lot. That’s easy, ambulance just layer element upon element upon element like the Canadian Olympic Committee’s logo (at right). The trick is to say only the right things to earn recognition and trust, sale then provide a memorable impression that your audience will take home with them.
The Committee logo is a classic example of over-layering, with the fussy little flame, arched French and English, and redundant maple leaves. This neither connects or inspires. Sadly, the Committee is keeping their logo, but the brand management folks have been wise enough to make the distinction between the organization (i.e the Committee) and the team (i.e. the athletes – or, the thing that people actually care about).
The new logo is a simple badge that I’d want on my arm if I were an athlete. And the rest of the design system is an elegant complement to the iconic logo. You can read more about it here.
Or check out the nicely toned video introducing the new system:
This photo made me laugh and laugh and laugh, cheap then think about branding, then spare a thought for the poor Libyan people who have had to live under this guy, then laugh some more.
One of these kids is not like the others
Looking at this photo, and a hilarious set of Ghadafi’s crazy get-ups collected by Vanity Fair, you really get the impression that this guy likes to stand out. And not just stand out, but go spinning off on his own loopy, maniacal tangent.
And that underlines the only point I’m going to make today:
Sometimes, it’s better NOT to Differ. Like if you get invited to the G8 and they ask you to join them for a photo op.
Or if everybody else’s repressive North African megalomaniacal dictatorship is moving to peace and democracy. That would be a good time to, you know, go with that flow.
the Canadian Olympic Committee’s logo (at right). The trick is to say only the right things to earn recognition and trust, 