The Real Deal

Too much time has passed without a post on this blog. It's been a productive Summer with lots of stories to tell, including many from a trip to Costa Rica. While traveling there, one thing that struck me was the lack of big name brands. Once outside the city of San Jose, we saw few signs for large companies or franchises. No Starbucks, McDonalds, Home Depot, Pepsi or Coke. No FedEx. No Walmart. All visible forms of commerce are local. Signage is almost all hand lettered. It was refreshing not to have the same old slick brands pushed at you all day long.

In Costa Rica, they decided two decades ago not to try and compete with other central and South American and African and Indonesian countries on a commodity and focus on quality. Now they only grow and export high quality Arabica coffee. Talk about positioning.

When we saw the sign for "Don Juan's" coffee plantation in the Monte Verde region, I was skeptical. It looked like a marketing attempt to create a character to promote coffee tours. All I could think of was Juan Valdez, the fictional persona that graces the coffee logo. According to The National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia's website, "The Juan Valdez logo was developed 1981 to identify and serve as a seal of guarantee to the brands that do indeed consist of 100% Colombian Coffee as approved by the Federation."

Turns out Don Juan's is an a real working coffee farm turned tourist attraction, and Don is a real guy -- a living Juan Valdez. There is some slickness to the place, but the experience was educational and the coffee was outstanding.

My son Cole thought Don Juan was so cool, he insisted on having his picture taken with him. I think the attraction was that he was authentic. It's hard to compete with that.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

Trying Too Hard to be Cool

One of the things I don't like to do is to comment on other people's creative work. Unless I am asked. But today, Chelsea Clinton asked me for some input.

Chelsea's email began: "We need your help to make a critical decision -- our next official campaign t-shirt." The message included a link to vote on my favorite design. Apparently this is the result of a contest where the Hillary campaign asked for the public's input for a new design that will presumably help them turn it around.

According to Chelsea, "It wasn't easy to narrow it down, but we've chosen five we think are particularly great." They've narrowed it to five designs, all with little connection with anything we've seen in the campaign. The ideas they have put forth present no consistency in image or message. Looking at the designs I can't help but think it's in response to the recent press that Obama's poster has gotten. One of them looks looks like a lame attempt at mimicking Shepard Fairey's Obama poster by giving Hillary's face a pop art treatment. It's badly done art and worse, has no cohesive message.

The Clinton campaign hires top level consultants to shape every aspect of its image. I wonder why they didn't do the same here. Imagine putting to a vote what Hillary's next strategy should be in the primaries. No doubt a contest seemed like a good idea -- they probably wanted it to appear as a home grown effort. But with all of Hillary's supporters among the creative community they could have done better with professional help. A lot better. The Hillary people should know this better than anyone.

Unfortunately for Hillary, it's too little too late. And it doesn't matter what I think.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

It's All About We

I was looking at a trade journal the other day, and started taking note of some the ads that stood out. There was one in particular for a law firm that stopped me with a compelling image. Unfortunately the rest was a disappointment. Reading it reminded me of listening to the person who corners you at a party and bores you to death talking about himself. The copy was riddled with "Our firm does this" and "this is what is important to us . . . blah blah blah." So what. In a message supposedly to engage potential customers, they used "we" seven times within a three sentence paragraph. This was the case with most of the professional services ads in the publication.

One breath of fresh air was an ad for a company marketing its services to the same audience. It didn't use the "we" word once. Interestingly they used "you" and "your"six times.

One of my favorite expressions is from a copywriter friend who always advised clients not to "we all over the page." He was referring to the use of "we" and other pronouns (like "our" and "us") when writing marketing copy. It's an easy trap to fall into. It's a challenge to avoid the "we" word when writing about your business. His advice was to try frame the message as a benefit. People care about what's in it for them. When you start a sentence with "you" or "your", it's a lot easier to focus on what is of value to the reader. And you've already primed readers with their most interesting subject: themselves.

If you were a homeowner concerned with maintenance, which of the following sentences would be more engaging? "We are specialists in painted ceilings." Or, "You can extend the life of your porch with the right ceiling treatment."

It's easy to talk about yourself. And it's essential to do so when you're trying to promote yourself and your business. The hard part is to talk about you in a way that makes people want to listen. Replacing "we" with "you" is a good start.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

A Win-Lose Situation

Not long ago, a business associate asked if we would design a poster for her organization's well known fundraiser, on a pro-bono basis. This was a well-attended local event and the project sounded like a worthy challenge. Toward the end of the conversation, she said: "oh, and we're having several others work on poster designs as well" -- basically turning the request into a contest. She said arrangements had also been made for the printing to be donated. When I asked if she was having more than one printer produce it, she laughed and said: "of course not." I respectfully declined to participate, but what I wanted to say was: "Do you know how rude this is?"

I can imagine few other circumstances where someone would ask for a favor, while at the same time saying essentially: "We value your contribution...unless we decide to value someone else's more." I think one reason for this attitude is that we are taught from a very early age to place little value on creative work. Because it's "fun" and "anyone can do it." Contests are common in schools where kids learn that creative work (like music and art) is secondary to "academics."

Many professional design organizations reject contests as unethical. I dislike them, but for different reasons. My problem with contests is that they are a colossal waste of resources. Imagine that an organization decides they need a logo, so they launch a 60-day contest. Suppose they get 100 entries, with each requiring an average expenditure of 20 hours of design time. That's a total of 2,000 hours -- almost a year of labor. That means that after picking a "winner", the other 1,980 hours (of the community's pool of pro-bono time) has been wasted. Simply in the interest of giving someone a choice.

I don't think competitions should be shunned. And I don't think creatives should stop entering them -- if that's how they choose to spend their time. If it makes business sense for a firm to participate in them, they should have at it. But I do think it's important for organizations to think about how they value what they ask for, and how they ask for it. If they truly need a donation of time and talents, it shouldn't come with an insult.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

You Like That? Really?

After nearly 14 years in the same space, it was time for a redo. What began over a year ago as a plan to upgrade parts of our office has grown into a project that includes new rooms, new lighting and virtually no surface untouched. We're looking forward to the end result in the coming weeks. The process has required daily decisions and focus on a lot of details. Mostly design details. This week while looking at lighting fixture options, many of my preferences were met with, "please tell me you aren't serious" from one of our designers. When I thought about it and really looked at some of my choices, I realized that it wasn't that they weren't well designed. They weren't in fashion.

This made me start to think about the relationship between fashion and design. On occasion, a young designer will show me something that I will instantly not like (not liking something has absolutely nothing to do with its effectiveness as a solution, but that's another discussion). Usually the reason is because I've seen it before -- years before -- and I connect it with old and tired (think mauve bathroom fixtures from the 80s). So I tend to dismiss some things out of hand when what I should be looking for is what the designer has done to draw from the past and turn it into something new.

The need for newness is what drives fashion. Clothing is an extreme example of this. My teenage son wears his hair and dress the way I did in high school in the late 70s. And I would guess that style has come and gone several times since then. Things that look dated and old to someone in their 40s can appear new and exciting to someone half that age seeing it for the first time.

The office design has made me think twice about the things, colors, textures and finishes we surround ourselves with. I realize that my comfort zone has been defined by what I have been used to seeing. So I have been trying to look at new ideas and old materials with an open mind. After all, nearly everything we do is some kind of mashup of what's been done in the past. I think the key is to not just redo what's already been done, but to remake it. I'm starting to really like the "new" stacked stone wall in our conference room. It kind of reminds me of my grandparents' circa mid-60s "Brady Bunch" split-level.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

Check Your Dignity at The Door

Imagine if you went to someone's home for dinner and as you were leaving, a guard asked you to empty your pockets -- just to make sure you weren't stealing anything. To say it would be insulting is an understatement. What do you think the chances are that you'd return any time soon, or ever? Pretty absurd concept. Chances are, you've had a similar experience and didn't think twice about it.

Recently I purchased a pair of work gloves from a large retail store. It as a quick exchange -- I found what I wanted and proceeded to pay for the merchandise. There was a "guard" within 20 feet of the checkout who could clearly see the transaction. As I was leaving, several exiting customers proceeded to line up -- presumably to have their purchases "checked." As I breezed through the door, the guard called out: "sir..., sir..., SIR!" I proceeded to my car without delay. My son Henry, who was with me said "dad I think that guy is calling you." I explained to him that the guard probably wanted to see a receipt, but since the merchandise had become mine at the moment the sale took place, and I had no obligation -- legal or otherwise, to prove it to anyone. And that unless I had been shoplifting, the person had no right -- legal or otherwise, to detain me. This might be the store's "policy" but my policy is not to be kept waiting. I had to explain to Henry why some stores do this, and that it didn't used to be this way.

Branding Lunacy

Who thought of this? More importantly, when did it become acceptable to paying customers to line up like sheep eager to prove their innocence without a second thought? How much will people take in the name of "low prices?" Apparently the requirement that they prove they didn't steal from the stores they've just patronized has become acceptable and expected -- for a lot of people. I don't know which is worse: the fact that companies cook up these policies that disparage customers, or that the customers put up with it.

I wonder if the companies that spend millions on branding and identity give any thought to what they are doing when they make policies that essentially say: "All CUSTOMERS ARE CONSIDERED SHOPLIFTERS UNTIL THEY PROVE OTHERWISE." From a branding perspective, things don't get much worse.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.

Symbols of Patriotism

Barrack Obama's patriotism has been questioned because he doesn't wear an American flag on his lapel. In October, he said that the flag had "become a substitute for true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues of importance to our national security." The American flag is not a political symbol. But increasingly, that is what it has become. It may be precisely because Obama understands the power of the flag's symbolism--and its politicization, that he stopped wearing it.

Misuse of the flag has been on the increase in advertising and in politics. It started in the Reagan years and Republicans have managed to brand it as theirs. "Support our troops" ribbons and flags seem to be code for "support our commander in chief." If you don't support the commander, then you don't support the troops, or the flag. And that means you must be unpatriotic. It's part of the "if you're not for us, you're against us" attitude that has caused such deep division in the country.

Democrats could dilute its power as an icon for the right by reclaiming the flag and making it a symbol for the UNITED States, and not one ideology. In a nation so fractured politically, maybe some common ground can be found in the flag as a shared symbol.

Could it be that Obama reveres the flag so deeply that he cannot bear to see it used as a symbol of anything less than a great nation? Maybe he has more respect for the flag than some of the "patriots" waving it.

Copyright 2008, Bremmer & Goris Communications, Inc.