« March 2020 | Main | June 2020 »
There are lots of charts like this at the moment. I really don't understand the point of the chart.
I mean, yeah, obviously. And yeah, good. Well not good, but appropriate and so good. It's exactly what you'd expect to see, isn't it?
I guess the stark lines are very attractive to editors and, yes, to graphic designers.
Anyway. Not helpful, sorry.
Out for daily exercise I was struck by all the dystopian, Orwellian screens. STAY HOME.
If this had happened 20 years ago, 15 years ago, we didn't have all these screens. I guess there were press ads and posters, but they don't feel as scary. More static, obviously.
The phrase has stuck. STAY HOME. It's simple and fits onto these funny screens well. Same message every time. Very on message we would have said in the old days.
I'm not complaining - it's good. It's necessary. I'm just recording it here for posterity. Timehop.
You've come to expect this sort of behaviour from the BT Tower but it's odd to see this from a theatre and a cinema. Presumably it's not bought media - the National definitely isn't. Will they be used this way in the future? Register to vote? Get out and vote? Queen's birthday? Where's the bar now?
And there's this too. A clever YouTube montage of all the coronavirus ads. It makes its point well. Every brand is saying the same thing. The same message.
I mean, I agree. But what else are they supposed to say? They could say nothing, that's a solid idea. But if they have the media booked anyway and if they sell online then saying 'thank you' and 'hang in there' and 'stay home' is not a bad idea.
Anyway. Stay home.
I'm really struggling with this one. Pret ❤️s London's Homeless.
I think they're giving meals ("7,000 additional meals") to the homeless which is good. But this still feels like an odd thing to say. However much you might love individuals who are homeless, surely you must hate the fact that homelessness exists.
This reads like you love the group and the idea. It's all a bit "Yay homeless!"
Also, if you love homeless people then surely you must want them to not be homeless anymore. So, idk, give them all the sandwiches or start a shelter or something.
Anyway, hashtag brands.
This is a picture of Matt Webb and Matt Jones. Nope, I have no idea either.
Matt Webb has started blogging again, pretty much daily, and it's great.
I've never liked science fiction (sorry) and I mostly only like movies that are set right now. Again, very sorry about that. Sorry.
Matt writes about a near future, let's say tomorrow, in a science fiction way. If that's science fiction then I guess I'm into that now.
Some examples.
"There are a bunch of ersatz foods that were invented out of scarcity and necessity, but have somehow stuck around. Salad cream. Canonical substitute food done good. Basically a bit like tangy mayonaisse but with less expensive mayonaisse and more oil and vinegar."
also
"If I were WeWork, I'd roll out their exact setup to office buildings right by commuter belt railway stations. Sell package deals to city-based firms for separate 3-4 person offices in 20 different towns, for all the employees that live in those places; sweat the details about integrating with I.T. department and make sure there's secure internet."
also
"Next: discos, probably. Music is massive UK export. Eurovision aside we're really good at it. Drop nightclubs in shipping containers, stream in all the good stuff. Good sound system, good lights. Hearts, minds, and banging techno."
Anyway. Read Interconnected.
Hashtag goals as some of you would say.
Brendan Cormier, senior design curator at the V&A has posted an immense 146 tweet thread walking you through the Cars: Accelerating the Modern World exhibition. It's brilliant.
I always find lots of text in exhibitions difficult, I like to keep moving. So this commentary is just the right length for me. And it's fascinating, much more about society, changes to the workforce and technology's influence on design than just automobiles.
Well worth 20 minutes of your time. Thanks Brendan.
Full thread starts here.
Let's not over think it. Good stuff.
This is a book of frustratingly unresolved thoughts right from the cover. Mad Men is obviously a reference to the HBO tv series about advertising, so what is Bad Men a reference to? Are politicians bad men? Or are the ad men bad men?
Small point because I get that the author is punning Mad Men, but half the book is about the Saatchis and Thatcher who was obviously not a man…
It’s an interesting read but it relies too much on anecdote and the author’s closeness to advertising.
In the blurb it says, "How did a bunch of unelected, unaccountable admen end up running British politics?". That appears to be saying that admen are running the country, yet the book says nothing of the sort.
It tries to make the point that advertising sways elections when all the politicians and all the advertising people say it doesn’t. Admittedly there is some weird double bluffing here especially from the Saatchis who are still keen to promote their client, Thatcher especially, and attribute all electoral success to her and the Conservatives.
But the evidence points to ads having little or no effect. The most interesting bits of the book are when the elections were the most interesting - 1979 and 1997. They produced great ads, but obviously they would have been significant elections regardless of the ads. And Thatcher and Blair would have won regardless of any advertising.
Delaney tries to make this point at the end but seems constantly drawn back to the case for advertising.
At best the ads come across as useful artefacts, especially for the media. They give a rich visual image for intangible subjects such as tax policy. Making an ad is also a useful process for making politicians focus on a particular topic. Nothing wrong with that. But not “unaccountable admen end up running British politics”.
Anyway. Register to vote.
Recent Comments