If you caught any news at all from the middle of last week until today you likely heard something about Black Friday. It traditionally marks that magical day when retailers finally sell us stupid Americans enough crap to finally have their finances for the year in the black (they have finally turned a profit). Every year poll results are posted tallying what the average American family plans on spending on Christmas shopping and how those numbers relate to previous years and every year you're likely to find a wide variance of results. One TV network says spending will be up slightly, another network says Americans won't take the clamps off their wallets for any reason whatsoever.
But what does Black Friday mean for Joe and Susy American? Do we ever see the benefits from rabid spending for 1/12th of the calendar year? I suppose that if you work in retail you'll likely see longer hours which would result in a couple of bigger paychecks but for the other 11/12ths of the year -- especially January -- those paychecks are far smaller than for the month of December. That's because people are spending like normal humans, they aren't buying crap for every member of their extended family. The month of January is particularly lackluster because the majority of overspending Americans are receiving those credit card bills form their spending orgy a month earlier.
Sure, the uptick in retail sales helps manufacturers but does it benefit Americans? Do yourself a favor and check out where a few of those bigger Christmas gifts you are giving are made. If you bought a TV or Blu-Ray player I'd assume it was manufactured in China. I'd be utterly flabbergasted if it were actually manufactered in America but stranger things have happened.
It's even worse if you're buying Christmas-related goods. All of those Christmas ornaments lining the aisles of your local Target or Walmart were probably made in China. I learned this as I pulled what seemed like hundreds of ornaments from boxes Saturday evening and hung them on the old Christmas tree. Nearly every ornament with a sticker attached said "Made in China". There's the first problem. The companies, at the very top, are probably based in America but our country definitely does not benefit from those potential manufacturing jobs because we've instead paid the wages of a sweat shop full of indentured workers somewhere in China. I fail to see how that benefits anyone but the CEOs who shipped those jobs overseas to line their own pcokets.
Lastly, Black Friday does little to further the giving spirit. Honestly folks, are you really going to give your big sister that 46" 3D LED TV you hulked in to your shopping cart inside Best Buy at 4 AM last Friday as you kicked your fellow shoppers in the shins because you saw it first? Probably not. I am not going to claim to be all high and mighty either because I'd buy the TV for myself just like you but in the end I have no use for that particular TV so I wouldn't be buying it anyhow. Sure, I'd love to have it but I already have a perfectly useable HDTV in my living room that will outlast half of the crap lining store shelves today. Black Friday essentially cons us in to buying big ticket items -- mainly electronics -- under the guise of giving to others but we all know that this stuff, all charged to our credit cards, is really going to end up in our entertainment centers as we throw the previous generation of TV or DVD player out on the curb because newer is always better -- regardless of how long it takes us to pay off.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 21, 2010
The worst logo ever
I did it. I took the How Low Can You Logo challenge and incorporated elements of design which, over the course of the past 13 years, I have come to despise. Brush Script font -- in all caps to boot. Some Comic Sans in the mix to up the level of sucktitude. Bad clip art, CHECK! A pointless but moderately phallic arrow to up the ante. And last, but not least, a rainbow gradient accentuated by an excessively bold and bright (and painfully contrasty) stroke on a giant capital letter. It's the perfect logo for the customer who wants it all and has no idea what a good image is. I think I have a winner here.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Don't trust an online advertising "expert"
A short conversation today quickly turned to discussing a supposed online sales guru with the last name of Blinder and how anyone with a couple years of experience in the graphic design industry knows what really works. Keep the animation to a minimum (don't make it annoying but use it when needed), don't be too fucking wordy and the most important point I brought up is that in the world of online users you have about a second to grab a reader's eyes and get them to pay attention to their ad. Don't use the same thought process that goes in to designing a typical newspaper or magazine advertisement because those are typically wordy and coming from a guy who reads fast, the shorter tidbits - no matter where I am reading them - get my attention first.
But back to Mr. Blinder. He and his team of "sales professionals" do produce results. They do so because they are overbearing, confrontational, aggressive and obnoxious (or so I've heard). They produce a shitload of revenue for their clients -- I've witnessed the results -- but they do so at a cost. That cost is the simple fact that your customers will forever associate online ads with the presentation they witnessed from the Blinder sales team. The Blinder team seems to make a habit out of over-promising results which sadly aren't achievable.
They promise that people will click the ads they are selling and drive traffic to customer's websites. Well, for that to happen the customer has to want whatever is being advertised pretty damn bad because plenty of websites out there are so bad that they shouldn't exist or so hopelessly outdated that the owner of them should bury their head in shame. This isn't a rip on local businesses because these very businesses keep a roof over my head and keep my co-workers gainfully employed but would you let your storefront display of Christmas items stay in your front window until May? I didn't think so.
For that matter, don't let your online ad fall in to that same outdated time warp. Update your ad and contrary to the advice of Mr. Blinder don't just change the background color. Simply changing the background color is fucking lazy. If I saw a designer doing this I'd be appalled for two reasons. The color should be thought out to a certain extent. Choosing a color, in my experience, is part of the overall design of a piece no matter how small or insignificant it is and changing the background -- the most dominant element -- can destroy a campaign and any business advertising should realize that a consistent look is what builds brand recognition. Change the color, disturb the brand recognition. It's pretty simple. Just look at what happened this week when Gap stores unveiled a new logo. That one move disrupted forty-plus years of history Gap had built. Don't tear down for the sake of tearing down, instead remodel, overhaul, refresh. The second reason is that this business' sales person isn't doing their job and is taking the easy way out. And if you have only one ad in your online arsenal, try harder. Multiple messages will allow website users to see something fresh. While sitting through TV commercials, I'd rather see two messages from the same advertiser than just one. Don't treat your online marketing any differently.
Mr. Blinder's greatest blunder is due to the fact that his ideas are displayed via Powerpoint. Sure, it's a decent enough program for conveying information but the way in which he does so is so ineffective that I'd rather sift through an endless stream of spreadsheets. The bulleted items are so vague that they could mean nearly anything if left open to interpretation. These vague points, after being given to sales persons, are then disemminated to potential customers. Cut through the bullshit and get real with customers. They want results but they also don't want to spend anything to achieve them because most businesses -- on a local level at least -- are so overtaxed financially that they aren't going to commit to a year's worth of advertising at any cost. I think most people would find it refreshing to NOT be sold a string of vague promises and numbers which mean nothing to them. A paragraph story in your ad -- no matter what its size is -- won't get read so keep it to ten words or less. I'll agree, though, with a point I read earlier this week about many advertisers having no fucking clue what CPM means and why they should care what it means so speak their language. To bring advertisers in to the fold of your website, be honest with them. They aren't going to get 10% of website users clicking on their ads. I've achieved that level once in a decade of experience with online advertising and that had more to do with the position and format of the ad than anything else. They wouldn't expect shoppers to bring their entire newspaper ad in to their store so why should click-thrus matter if your ad doesn't particularly lend to being clicked?
Expanding on that point, offer customers something they actually want. Click Here for a 50% off coupon is a good start. That will break the bank, you say? Have you heard of a disclaimer? Cap the savings amount at ten or twenty dollars and limit it to one coupon per user. Even grocery coupon sites like coupons.com have print limits so don't say that it can't be done because it can. And to bring it full circle, if your website sucks, don't expect people to come back to it. You get but one chance to make that first-time visitor a repeat visitor. If your inventory is stagnant or doesn't change frequently, add something to your website that CAN be freshened frequently and promote that to the front page of your site. Maybe a blog about something relevant to your business. Trust me, your employees are the best source of ideas so ask them, hell, have them handle that aspect of your online presence because sometimes letting go of what you think is the only way to do things is the best thing to do.
But back to Mr. Blinder. He and his team of "sales professionals" do produce results. They do so because they are overbearing, confrontational, aggressive and obnoxious (or so I've heard). They produce a shitload of revenue for their clients -- I've witnessed the results -- but they do so at a cost. That cost is the simple fact that your customers will forever associate online ads with the presentation they witnessed from the Blinder sales team. The Blinder team seems to make a habit out of over-promising results which sadly aren't achievable.
They promise that people will click the ads they are selling and drive traffic to customer's websites. Well, for that to happen the customer has to want whatever is being advertised pretty damn bad because plenty of websites out there are so bad that they shouldn't exist or so hopelessly outdated that the owner of them should bury their head in shame. This isn't a rip on local businesses because these very businesses keep a roof over my head and keep my co-workers gainfully employed but would you let your storefront display of Christmas items stay in your front window until May? I didn't think so.
For that matter, don't let your online ad fall in to that same outdated time warp. Update your ad and contrary to the advice of Mr. Blinder don't just change the background color. Simply changing the background color is fucking lazy. If I saw a designer doing this I'd be appalled for two reasons. The color should be thought out to a certain extent. Choosing a color, in my experience, is part of the overall design of a piece no matter how small or insignificant it is and changing the background -- the most dominant element -- can destroy a campaign and any business advertising should realize that a consistent look is what builds brand recognition. Change the color, disturb the brand recognition. It's pretty simple. Just look at what happened this week when Gap stores unveiled a new logo. That one move disrupted forty-plus years of history Gap had built. Don't tear down for the sake of tearing down, instead remodel, overhaul, refresh. The second reason is that this business' sales person isn't doing their job and is taking the easy way out. And if you have only one ad in your online arsenal, try harder. Multiple messages will allow website users to see something fresh. While sitting through TV commercials, I'd rather see two messages from the same advertiser than just one. Don't treat your online marketing any differently.
Mr. Blinder's greatest blunder is due to the fact that his ideas are displayed via Powerpoint. Sure, it's a decent enough program for conveying information but the way in which he does so is so ineffective that I'd rather sift through an endless stream of spreadsheets. The bulleted items are so vague that they could mean nearly anything if left open to interpretation. These vague points, after being given to sales persons, are then disemminated to potential customers. Cut through the bullshit and get real with customers. They want results but they also don't want to spend anything to achieve them because most businesses -- on a local level at least -- are so overtaxed financially that they aren't going to commit to a year's worth of advertising at any cost. I think most people would find it refreshing to NOT be sold a string of vague promises and numbers which mean nothing to them. A paragraph story in your ad -- no matter what its size is -- won't get read so keep it to ten words or less. I'll agree, though, with a point I read earlier this week about many advertisers having no fucking clue what CPM means and why they should care what it means so speak their language. To bring advertisers in to the fold of your website, be honest with them. They aren't going to get 10% of website users clicking on their ads. I've achieved that level once in a decade of experience with online advertising and that had more to do with the position and format of the ad than anything else. They wouldn't expect shoppers to bring their entire newspaper ad in to their store so why should click-thrus matter if your ad doesn't particularly lend to being clicked?
Expanding on that point, offer customers something they actually want. Click Here for a 50% off coupon is a good start. That will break the bank, you say? Have you heard of a disclaimer? Cap the savings amount at ten or twenty dollars and limit it to one coupon per user. Even grocery coupon sites like coupons.com have print limits so don't say that it can't be done because it can. And to bring it full circle, if your website sucks, don't expect people to come back to it. You get but one chance to make that first-time visitor a repeat visitor. If your inventory is stagnant or doesn't change frequently, add something to your website that CAN be freshened frequently and promote that to the front page of your site. Maybe a blog about something relevant to your business. Trust me, your employees are the best source of ideas so ask them, hell, have them handle that aspect of your online presence because sometimes letting go of what you think is the only way to do things is the best thing to do.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
It's time to abolish the TSA
After last weekend's relative freak out by one man about body scanners and molestation-level "pat-downs" by TSA agents, it's become clear -- if it wasn't already -- that the TSA has overstepped their bounds and has accomplished little to nothing in the process.
It all began simply enough at the initial wave of post-9/11 paranoia. People had to stand in long lines and remove everything from their pockets, start up electronic devices to prove that they were, in fact, electronic devices and pass through metal detectors.
Then came the "shoe bomber". This lead to airline passengers kicking off their shoes and walking through the checkpoints barefoot. It was at this level of pure terrorism paranoia that, while in a TSA line in Aruba, I commented to the older gentleman in front of me that their next step of bullshit would be having passengers walk through security checkpoints fully naked. Of course the TSA's installation of thousands of "body scanners" is essentially that but the police wanna-bes at the TSA will insist that everything they're doing is "for the safety of the traveling public". If that's true, why in the hell are we now limited to three ounces of liquids or gels in our carry-ons? Why can't we bring a fucking bottle of water past the security checkpoint? Why are grandmas and seven year old gils being subjected to molestation-level patdowns and "body scans"? Why is anyone being subjected to this? Isn't it bad enough that we initially had to arrive a couple hours early to make our flights? How much earlier do the TSA brain wizards recommend now that they are x-raying every last person (in certain airports) who board a flight? How much longer does this latest bullshit security safeguard add to the hassle that is flying?
In short, the TSA has done nothing than force would-be terrorists to come up with new, more undetectable ways of attempting to blow things up. The terrorists haven't been successful and the TSA is far too focused on humans being the carrier of the explosives -- the whole toner cartridge issue in the cargo area shows that the TSA is nothing but a bunch of perverts who want to see everyone, regardless of their body shape, buck naked in the name of security.
It all boils down to the TSA being yet another colossal waste of our tax money in the name of keeping fear alive. In the process they've decimated the airline industry and made Americans fearful of a nameless, faceless form of terror that could be lurking beneath the clothes of the guy behind you or in the toothpaste tube of the lady in front of you. They want you to be afraid of everything. Fear is their greatest strength and they keep getting more money for accomplishing nothing. They've never thwarted a would-be terrorist and always seem to discover the newest way of blowing up a plane after that newest way has made it aboard a flight. Eliminate the TSA entirely and we're one step closer to balancing the budget.
It all began simply enough at the initial wave of post-9/11 paranoia. People had to stand in long lines and remove everything from their pockets, start up electronic devices to prove that they were, in fact, electronic devices and pass through metal detectors.
Then came the "shoe bomber". This lead to airline passengers kicking off their shoes and walking through the checkpoints barefoot. It was at this level of pure terrorism paranoia that, while in a TSA line in Aruba, I commented to the older gentleman in front of me that their next step of bullshit would be having passengers walk through security checkpoints fully naked. Of course the TSA's installation of thousands of "body scanners" is essentially that but the police wanna-bes at the TSA will insist that everything they're doing is "for the safety of the traveling public". If that's true, why in the hell are we now limited to three ounces of liquids or gels in our carry-ons? Why can't we bring a fucking bottle of water past the security checkpoint? Why are grandmas and seven year old gils being subjected to molestation-level patdowns and "body scans"? Why is anyone being subjected to this? Isn't it bad enough that we initially had to arrive a couple hours early to make our flights? How much earlier do the TSA brain wizards recommend now that they are x-raying every last person (in certain airports) who board a flight? How much longer does this latest bullshit security safeguard add to the hassle that is flying?
In short, the TSA has done nothing than force would-be terrorists to come up with new, more undetectable ways of attempting to blow things up. The terrorists haven't been successful and the TSA is far too focused on humans being the carrier of the explosives -- the whole toner cartridge issue in the cargo area shows that the TSA is nothing but a bunch of perverts who want to see everyone, regardless of their body shape, buck naked in the name of security.
It all boils down to the TSA being yet another colossal waste of our tax money in the name of keeping fear alive. In the process they've decimated the airline industry and made Americans fearful of a nameless, faceless form of terror that could be lurking beneath the clothes of the guy behind you or in the toothpaste tube of the lady in front of you. They want you to be afraid of everything. Fear is their greatest strength and they keep getting more money for accomplishing nothing. They've never thwarted a would-be terrorist and always seem to discover the newest way of blowing up a plane after that newest way has made it aboard a flight. Eliminate the TSA entirely and we're one step closer to balancing the budget.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
The best argument ever for gay marriage
After last week's elections across the country, rumors are swirling that the new Republican majority's number one priority is the move forward on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That's their number one priority? Never mind that millions of people are losing their homes. Forget that the nation's infrastructure is falling apart. Let's not even mention that America is teetering on the brink of lising its superpower status because we've shipped all of our manufacturing and technical jobs overseas but let's ban that gay marriage because it makes a few old white guys uncomfortable -- possibly uncomfortable about their own closeted homosexual feelings. But, hey, let's take away something from a few that's widely accepted for the majority. Let's make an unfortunately discriminated few feel even less accepted. Yeah, that's the ticket.
The dumbasses who want to ban gay marriage are forgetting one vastly important thing. Weddings are a huge expenditure and the more you encourage weddings of any sort, the more the economy as a whole benefits. Think of weddings as the best for of economic stimulus ever. It all starts with the wedding license. That expenditure -- in the grand scheme of things -- is minimal but it lines the goverment coffers and keeps government employees working. That's about $35. The next step is lining up a venue for the ceremony. Some of thsoe venues are free but some cost money. More money in to the economy there. Then you need to clothe the wedding party. Should it be guys or gals, those clothes cost money. A cheap tux costs just over a hundred dollars to rent and a cheap bridesmaid dress runs a minimum of $150. Multiply that by the number in the wedding party and you've got even more economic stimulus happening. But it doesn't stop there. You may employ a wedding planner, you'll need those little bottles of bubbles to blow as the happy couple runs to their vehicle of choice which, if it's a limousine or horse-drawn carriage, is another expenditure which keeps businesses running and people employed. And don't forget about the releasing of doves. Another excellent economic stimulus.
Then, of course, is the wedding reception. Some people go small but others go big. You have to rent a venue, feed the sometimes hundreds of guests and provide entertainment. The reception can run from $5000-$10000 dollars on the low end. That amount of spending is nothing to sneeze at.
You'll also want to chronicle the events of the day so you'll need aphotographer and a decent photographer can run $1000-$10000. But the future is video and the future is now. Better get a videographer to remember the day. Look at that -- even more money paid out.
It's not just the happy couple spending money, guests at the wedding traditionally bring gifts. Figure that each couple attending the wedding will spend $50-$100 on a gift for the happy couple. Many of these guests are also from out of town so they'll need a hotel for a night or two. That's easily $100 per night.
But we aren't done yet. Nobody gets married without planning a honeymoon. Plane tickets to someplace fun or romantic, a hotel for about a week and dining and activities could run about $3000 on the low end.
All told, by my rudimentary math, a wedding stimulates the economy to the tune of $85,000. My math may not be exactly accurate but you get the picture. Weddings are big money and banning gay marriage or whatever you politically correct folks want to call it is flat out stupid. Weddings = economic stimulus and if the new Republican majority of elected representatives wants to ban gay marriage they obviously hate America and want our country to fail.
The dumbasses who want to ban gay marriage are forgetting one vastly important thing. Weddings are a huge expenditure and the more you encourage weddings of any sort, the more the economy as a whole benefits. Think of weddings as the best for of economic stimulus ever. It all starts with the wedding license. That expenditure -- in the grand scheme of things -- is minimal but it lines the goverment coffers and keeps government employees working. That's about $35. The next step is lining up a venue for the ceremony. Some of thsoe venues are free but some cost money. More money in to the economy there. Then you need to clothe the wedding party. Should it be guys or gals, those clothes cost money. A cheap tux costs just over a hundred dollars to rent and a cheap bridesmaid dress runs a minimum of $150. Multiply that by the number in the wedding party and you've got even more economic stimulus happening. But it doesn't stop there. You may employ a wedding planner, you'll need those little bottles of bubbles to blow as the happy couple runs to their vehicle of choice which, if it's a limousine or horse-drawn carriage, is another expenditure which keeps businesses running and people employed. And don't forget about the releasing of doves. Another excellent economic stimulus.
Then, of course, is the wedding reception. Some people go small but others go big. You have to rent a venue, feed the sometimes hundreds of guests and provide entertainment. The reception can run from $5000-$10000 dollars on the low end. That amount of spending is nothing to sneeze at.
You'll also want to chronicle the events of the day so you'll need aphotographer and a decent photographer can run $1000-$10000. But the future is video and the future is now. Better get a videographer to remember the day. Look at that -- even more money paid out.
It's not just the happy couple spending money, guests at the wedding traditionally bring gifts. Figure that each couple attending the wedding will spend $50-$100 on a gift for the happy couple. Many of these guests are also from out of town so they'll need a hotel for a night or two. That's easily $100 per night.
But we aren't done yet. Nobody gets married without planning a honeymoon. Plane tickets to someplace fun or romantic, a hotel for about a week and dining and activities could run about $3000 on the low end.
All told, by my rudimentary math, a wedding stimulates the economy to the tune of $85,000. My math may not be exactly accurate but you get the picture. Weddings are big money and banning gay marriage or whatever you politically correct folks want to call it is flat out stupid. Weddings = economic stimulus and if the new Republican majority of elected representatives wants to ban gay marriage they obviously hate America and want our country to fail.
Monday, November 1, 2010
The Oprah Winfrey Network logo keeps getting worse
Oprah Winfrey's cable television network has been in the works for two or three years and has missed its launch date twice but that doesn't stop the channel helmed by the reigning queen of daytime talk from approving logos which keep getting worse with each revision. It almost makes me wonder just how bad the channel will be when/if it launches. But rather than speculate, let's look at these logos.
From a pre-launch logo that seemed to be all-things Oprah including her almost instantly recongizable "O" and a classy feel with a pleasing green tone to an almost instantly outdated sans serif/rounded font in something resembling Vag Rounded in descending orange tones to the latest design abortion seen below...
At first glance many may say that this screamingly bright logo perfectly nails Oprah's larger than life personality but upon closer inspection it's borderline trash. It's a poorly conceived logo attempting to stand out and be three-dimensional. The color bands lack consistent width across the three letters. The seemingly chopped out color band's inconsistency is particularly obvious on the letter "O" -- just look at the inner-most band's upper right corner. Why is there only a thin sliver of yellow there? If it's done that way to give the illusion of dimension, it's done so poorly because that corner's poorly crafted arc is driving me fucking nuts to look at. It sickens me that someone got paid to design this and that's not me being bitter because I didn't get a crack at designing it -- I wouldn't want to even begin dealing with the endless tweaks, revisions, suggestions and demans involved with creating even something as visually appalling as this piss-poor and maybe final version of the Oprah Winfrey Network logo.
Come on Oprah, you can do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
