Co-branded

Artist/science-fictionist Mary Mattingly envisions a future of branding in even the most desolate and isolated of places, including the tiny islet of Loss Accountability of Top-Down Ontologies, seen here. In reviews of Mattingly's work, which are collected here, here and here, the CVS sign (among other branded components including plastic Banana Republic, Lexus, etc.-sponsored fruit trees) unflinchingly critique the inescapable ubiquity of the contemporary corporate brand. There seems to me to be another element of Mattingly's work: reliance on branded products and their consumption for survival. This might be a critique, but there is also something exciting about Mattingly's future-persons, with their full-home kits and their do-it-all electronics gadgets; many of these isolated future-persons are genuinely "cool" in the science-fictiony sense, and that seems to be a contradiction.

Which is not to say I would want to live in this particular future; only that there is an element of techno-cyborg-utopianism along with the more dystopian forecasting of increased brand reach. I think this in many ways sums up the conundrum of branding, if there is one: the love/hate relationship we all have with brands: the way we appropriate them to form our self-identity and yet are beholden to them when we choose to purchase "products."

While you're thinking long and hard about that, I'll be ordering some hot wings at this neighborhood bar & grill (via Scarequotes).

Posted by at 10:18 AM | Permalink

I have some thoughts on the Best and Worst Brand Extensions of 2006 as reported by Brandweek December 11th, 2006.

The Brandweek survey was sent out to 860 branding professionals in November, and those professionals responded with their thoughts. This is the second year Brandweek has sponsored a "best and worst," and I am intrigued by the nascent award-show-in-the-making. Will we one day have a nationally televised or otherwise widely publicized event to laud and lambast co-branded products? Only time will tell. Until that time, there are a few results that puzzle me.

For instance, the branding professionals panned Willie Nelson Biodiesel Fuel. In the words of Brandweek's Todd Wasserman, "Consumers may love Nelson's music, but would they trust their car's engine to the pot-smoking country music star?" I personally find this comment offensive. Does anyone else think this is weird? I mean, any moderate Nelson fan knows that the "pot-smoking country music star" has been supporting biofuel for years, in addition to a plethora of other environmental causes, and of course Farm Aid. Is it really such a stretch? The lack of enthusiasm for this particular brand extension speaks volumes to the dim-witted isolationism of branding professionals.

Moreover, they were excited about Snoop Dogg's new line of pet products. Why? A cursory Wikipedia search turns up all kinds of Snoop-related paraphernalia, from gum to shoes to marijuana-flavored candy. But the branding professionals were especially enthusiastic about this latest brand extension, because it makes more sense to them. Though I admit there is an element of sense, it is certainly not any more "fitting" than Willie Nelson's foray into biofuel.

So I am left troubled by this Brandweek survey, and still processing. There seem to me to be some ideological implications behind the declaration of which brands "fit" together and which brands don't. The survey is a way for branding professionals to tell us fun little things about their world-view. Like that Willie Nelson is a "pot-smoking country music star," and this precludes his role as an environmental activist. The Snoop Dogg/pet products pairing sounds like an SNL sketch left on the cutting room floor. But so long as Snoop Dogg is making fun of himself, branding professionals will salute him. Only the most superficial connections seem to be acceptable, and certain "successful" combinations, such as the Maxim magazine Steakhouse and Budweiser Barbecue Sauce only really work if our standard is "stuff that men like."

There are many other ways one could go with analysis of these brand pairings, and especially with the public/professional reception (or rejection) of certain combinations. The response to brand extensions is like a window into the soul of our superficial society, and I for one am appalled by what I see.

On the other hand, who doesn't love Cheetos® Lip Balm?

Posted by at 4:25 PM | Permalink

• X.mas | New York Times
  An experiment to rebrand Christmas, courtesy WNYC and NYT.
  (tags: x.mas branding wnyc nytimes)
• Brand:New “Cheetos Flavored Lip Balm”
  Stuart Hogue at the Brand:New blog links to some of the best and worst brand extensions of the past year.
  (tags: cheetos brand:new brandextension 2006)

Posted by at 7:23 AM | Permalink

• Smoke Free Movies full-page ad
  Smoke Free Movies funded a full-page ad in Variety to denounce 30 seconds of Marlboro product placement in the new "Bobby" biopic.
  (tags: bobby smokefreemovies emilioestevez marlboro)
• Porn Provides Product Placement | The Huffington Post
  Paul Krassner has some exciting info about Hitachi brand vibrators over at The Huffington Post.
  (tags: thehuffingtonpost porn productplacement)
• Brands Produce Their Own Shows | New York Times
  Though branded entertainment is incorrectly described as a "nascent trend" (branded shows have been around at least as long as Saturday Morning TV, and probably longer), this NYT article is pretty interesting.
  (tags: brandedentertainment newyorktimes)

Posted by at 7:23 AM | Permalink

Fast food meets petroleum puddles once again in this photo by Azure. The red and yellow go nicely together, and it is as though hamburgers could be purchased by the liter. And also as though hamburgers were unleaded gasoline.

And all of this is true.

Posted by at 6:56 PM | Permalink

Jona B. of Young Americans Challenging High Technology sent me a couple great shots of the Taco Bell/Long John Silver's sign in Hillsboro, OR. No fish tacos, but if you want a taco and also a fish, you are set.

The Les Schwab in the background is a nice touch, and the bare, wintry trees with foregrounded suburban hotrod give the scene a somewhat bleaker feeling than is usual.

Merry Christmas.

Posted by at 9:34 PM | Permalink

Mai-Ling of the Berkeley Haas Scholars program recently brought the latest co-branded promotion of the USPS to my attention: a partnership with eBay.

The press release is, as always, a treasure trove of memorable quotes, including:

The Priority Mail Shoebox is designed to meet the special needs of shippers in one of the fastest growing segments of the retail apparel industry--shoes.

"As eBay entrepreneurs know, in the highly competitive direct-to-consumer market, the low cost and up-front pricing of Priority Mail gives shippers who use this product a way to provide more value to their customers," said Anita Bizzotto, USPS Chief Marketing Officer and Executive Vice President.

And my favorite:

Postal Service employees will demonstrate the eBay/USPS Integrated Shipping Solution option on the eBay website.

The capitalization of "Shoebox" is interesting. Probably the name never appears except in full: "The Priority Mail Shoebox." As is the case with "eBay/USPS Integrated Shipping Solution." Huh?? That is the brand name of the the shipping option. Remarkable.

And the quote from Bizzotto is priceless. That classic PR brochure-speak. Sorry I don't have much else to say, except to deconstruct the press release. But well, it is pretty funny and weird, and you can look for those extra-special eBay/USPS boxes in the near future.

Posted by at 1:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Posted by at 1:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)