When we were young, we read Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions. And we enjoyed it mightily. But the one thing that stuck with us above all the many things that could have stuck with us about the book was this:
Now it wasn't so much Vonnegut's use of the word "asshole" that surprised us. (We hear it a lot in our business.) What surprised us blew us completely out of the water was his willingness to break the rules.The man just up and drew an asterisk! In the middle of the page! Of a novel! You can't DO that! But he did. And it was shockingly unexpected. Yet no one arrested him. In fact, he sold a ton of books. Tons of books, plural. Great heaving boxcars of books. And slightly smaller boxcars filled with cash came back to him.
Which brings us to these delightful "Go Fishing" spots from takemefishingfilms:
The Bassador himself? Funny, but not roll-on-the-ground funny. But check this one out:
Wait a minute. You use half of your too-long-by-sixty-seconds-spot to argue with a talking fish? Using beautifully typeset graphics? In a video? With no music? You can't DO that! But they did. And it was shockingly unexpected. And we liked it. Not only that – we want to go fishing now. We doubt this will bring anyone great heaving boxcars of cash. But we do applaud the fish people's willingness to break arbitrary rules in the service of their idea. That's just good stuff.
Plus, we hope someone reels in that mouthy fish. He's begging for it.
If you know the Mortarblog, you know we love beating up on Microsoft. But we have to say, their new work from CP+B? Pret-tay, pret-tay, pret-tay good.
We could quibble with this and that…(EX: the "really?" thing is really getting played,) but overall, we're amazed that something with an actual concept made it out of the boardroom alive. Does someone at Crispin have compromising pictures of Steve Ballmer, Brett Favre and 500 gallons of Thousand Island dressing? Or could Microsoft's marketers actually be…learning? Either way, nicely* done.
*If the dang phone turns out to be explosive or something, we take it back.
As much as agencies like ours love to talk about planning and research and Important-Sounding Scientifical-Type Stuff, at the end of the day, what we do is not Scientifical-Type Stuff, but art.
You either like it, or you don't. You either respond to it, or you don't.
But here's a trick that works more often than not. Be authentic. Not what you think "Minivan Moms" "Early Adopters" or "Gen Y 2.0" will think is "authentic." What you know is authentic. Even if it's a little scary, or seems "too smart." Because the second you get too concerned with doing what's easily bottled and replicated, you find yourself safely ensconced inside your undisclosed location corporate boardroom, and out of touch. Without the ability to be authentic.
And something like this happens.
Helvetica! And a blue square! Brilliant!
Honestly, we're not that shocked by this thing. Why? Because our expectations for a corporate behemoth like Gap are pretty low. We've designed a logo or two before. And the process of dragging the poor things through a conference room is closely akin to having weasels rip your flesh.
"OK! We'll use Helvetica! OK!"
But corporate behemothness is no excuse for pissing on our leg and telling us it's raining. Being big isn't in-and-of-itself the worst thing in the world. If anyone should be allowed to slap some Helvetica and a blue box together and call it a logo, it's Gap. After all, if they had done something groundbreaking, would any of us have suddenly mistaken them for scrappy indie upstarts? No. We're not saying they couldn't have done better. Of course they could have. But, we understand the "meh." We can accept the "meh."
At best, we're looking at a weak-ass attempt to appear to be "listening."
At worst, we're looking at a global behemoth trying to get a new logo for free.
And we're definitely looking at the worst kind of cowardly treatment of their design team.
Let's see how these "passionate debates" are "unfolding."
"Dear Gap: I'm doing this little project where I'm trying to rethink my clothing style. so here's what I want you to do: -please design me a custom outfit. jeans, shirts, perhaps a coat and hat since it will be getting cool soon…"
Heh. Nice.
"You need a new name as well. How about "Chasm" or "Abyss." My work is done."
"Abyss." That's funny. But the one that sums it up best?
"First you guys f*ck up. Then you want someone to fix it for free?"
Ouch. Now, in the past we've talked about relinquishing control of your brand, and how that can be a good thing. This ain't how. Because – whatever you think of the logo – the transparent pandering of the "crowdsourcing" stunt isn't authentic. Well, authentically lame, maybe.
Now for something completely different:
Awesome. Taking on NIKE? Recruit God. (And Doctor J.) Unreal.
Now, let's compare the conversation that went on in Gap's boardroom to the conversation that happened in Converse's:
GAP: "Let's get consensus. And consensus about the consensus. Look at some Powerpoint slides that prove whatever it is we already decided we want. And for god's sake don't do anything controversial. I'm thinking Helvetica. Is it time for lunch yet?"
CONVERSE: "Hey, you know what would be cool?"
Both of these efforts required a roll of the dice. Only one brand stepped to the table with the confidence that comes from an authentic effort.
"Ok. We've heard loud and clear that you don't like the new logo. We've learned a lot from the feedback. We only want what's best for the brand and our customers. So instead of crowdsourcing, we're bringing back the Blue Box tonight."
Gah. Listen up, Gap, because you obviously need the help: You chose the logo. You (probably) spent a lot of time making your decision. Second-guessing yourselves based on a bunch of pointy-headed bloggers complaints? You've made a huge mistake. Again.
