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.
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.
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.
I recently noticed an interesting, and deeply embedded, instance of co-branding in Fritz Lang's essential noir film Scarlet Street (1945). Edward G. Robinson plays Christopher Cross, a cashier and amateur painter taken for the proverbial "ride" by respective pimp and prostitute, Johnny and Kitty Marsh. As a consequence of Kitty's pseudo-seduction of Chris, and Johnny's cruelly entrepreneurial spirit, Chris's paintings are eventually credited to Kitty. They go on display in the finest New York gallery of modern art under Kitty's name, yet the betrayal doesn't seem to bother Chris. Kitty's relationship with Johnny sure does, so Chris murders them both.
Inspired by the primitive style of post-impressionist painter Henri Rousseau, the paintings in Scarlet Street are emblematic signposts, structuring and guiding the narrative. And lest I repeat the same violence of Johnny and Kitty, it should be said that Lang commissioned John Decker, most famous for painting Hollywood star portraits, to produce the paintings for the film. Chris's artistic vision is presented as incredibly naive, child-like, and yet with a disarming depth of insight. Chris "draws a line" around what he feels. Here is a shot of one painting on display in the gallery window:
This painting represents an event--really the event--that sets the narrative of Scarlet Street into motion. Chris is walking home late one evening, and sees Johnny and Kitty standing on a corner. Johnny is, in characteristic pimp fashion, beating the holy hell out of Kitty. When Chris approaches, Johnny takes off, and Chris never does get a good look at Johnny's face: an unfortunate detail, as it makes possible later deceptions. In the painting, Johnny is the snake, Kitty is the girl, the 'El' tracks are the 'El' tracks, the pawn shop is the pawn shop, etc.
It doesn't show up in the digital version of the print I was able to download from Public Domain Torrents, but in the newly re-mastered DVD recently released by the Library of Congress, certain interesting visual details emerge from the painting. Namely, the billboards lining the 'El' tracks are advertisements for real companies: Johnnie Walker, Camel's and Canada Dry Soda Water.
Even in this digitally altered version it is tough to see, so you will have to take my word for it. What intrigues me most about this co-branding is how totally unintentional it is. It is obvious that the brands didn't pay for inclusion, and also that no "commentary" is being made about the invasiveness of branding or consumerism. There is an under-riding theme of "capitalism vs. art" in the film, in so far as Chris plays a naive artist unconcerned with profit whose creations are transformed by Kitty and her entrepreneur into highly esteemed paintings that fetch top dollar at the best galleries. However, Lang doesn't seem to be explicitly critiquing the commodification of art, so much as representing its sordid realities.
The decision to represent real brands in the actual art objects within the film (the art within the art) is a pretty remarkable one. What difference does it make whether the composition uses Johnnie Walker or some other generic product name? Especially when close-ups of the painting are so brief, and the most important details are the snake and woman standing in front of the pawn shop. It's a curious instance of "co-branded product placement," and it's always interesting to discover these odd early depictions of brand names.
What a nightmare.
Nikon Corp. has unveiled a new print campaign to further promote its partnership with Yahoo!-financed photo-sharing website Flickr™. The Flickr™ logo appears on the ad pictured above to the right, while Flickr™ is merely mentioned in the ad on the left. Click on the pictures to see larger versions of the pictures.
Another ad in the campaign (not pictured) doesn't mention Flickr™, but Nikon has set up a gallery dedicated to scraping photos tagged with "nikonstunninggallery" from Flickr™ and posting them for all to see. Nikon Stunning Gallery sounds to me like Network Associates Coliseum. Certainly the precedent for something like this was set in the sports world, and it will be interesting to see if this sort of model proliferates on social networking sites like Flickr™, MySpace, et al. Flickr™'s (attractive) logo appears on the Nikon Stunning Gallery website, along with Nikon's (not so attractive) "yellow box" design.
If "youth" has been the advertising buzz word since the 1960s, surely "creativity" is the consumer ideal of the 21st century. Apple has built its entire corporate image on the conept. Many others talk about "interactivity," the "creative class," etc. There is of course a "creative class" proper to acknowledge, but there is as well a "creative consumer" being forged in the contemporary marketplace. Maybe this is all obvious, but it seems like twenty years from now this moment, as advertising has represented it, will reflect the wholesale destabilization of "creativity" as a tenable concept.
Nikon's Flickr™ print campaign truly transmits the allure and appeal of "creativity," and of being part of a community of artists, and it is interesting how quickly (post-Silicon Valley) the bohemian communal/artistic ethos has become the new consumer ideal. Perhaps this is something to be lamented. Of course, it was always our desire to have more people think like us (as the artists of the 60s sought to make people "think young"). Maybe the new artistic underground will be comprised of lone geniuses, forsaking community, creativity, "sharing" and interactivity to stare mindlessly at their hands. This could be the new rebellion. Staring at our hands. Descartes did it, and we're still talking about him.
I guess staring at our hands has some staying power.
Steve Schroeder, blogger, artist, friend and proprietor of the States Rights brand, has been traipsing the country, criss-crossing the borders of those semi-autonomous principalities that are his music label's namesake. On the journey, he has encountered a handful of not-so-familiar co-brands, which he has generously shared with me periodically over email.
In New York City, Steve observed a Dunkin' Donuts/31 Flavors co-brand, that I must confess to have never seen before. The double desserts to be had behind the safety doors of this establishment can only be imagined.
Previously, I had encouraged States Rights recording artist Adam Forkner to seek out a co-branded eating establishment on a random summer night in Portland, OR. Back then, I erroneously believed Baskin-Robbins and Togo's Eateries, Inc. to be part of the Yum! Brands family: in large part due to the fact that these establishments have also been known to aggressively co-brand.
Since then, I have learned that, in fact, Togo's, B-R and Dunkin' Donuts are not Yum! Brands brands, but rather part of the Dunkin' Brands, Inc family. This may have been obvious to any lay person, but it was news (exciting news!) to me.
In short, the Dunkin' Brands brands co-branding strategy is in part a competitive response to the Yum! Brands brands co-branding strategy, a practice initiated circa 2002 after Yum!'s acquisition of Long John Silver's and A&W All-American Food.
Gold Star Chili has locations in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana, and proudly touts its standing as "the first free-standing chili restaurant in Cincinatti." This particular franchise, however, stands together with The Great Steak & Potato Co..
It is fascinating that two such companies, chiefly local in scope and with most locations company-owned, would have such a co-branded location. As there is no official union of the two brands at the corporate level (as far as I can tell), this particular location must be the result of two enterprising franchisees (or one franchisee of both restaurants) looking to adopt the co-branded strategy that objectively seems to be benefitting larger competitors in the Yum! and/or Dunkin' families. The pairing does seem to be an obvious fit, and it would be interesting if down the road the two brands did merge. The possibility of franchisee co-branding actually leading to a merger at the corporate level is incredible, though of course such a possibility is mere speculation.
White Castle is another privately held company, and in this case none of its U.S. locations are franchised. The fact that each location is company owned necessitates some kind of agreement at the corporate level, to "authorize" such a White Castle/Church's Chicken co-brand.
Apparently, Church's Chicken items were once available at Harvey's, but can no longer be found on the menu. The Church's/White Castle combo seems to be a similar co-venture, though I can only speculate at this point as to the nature of the agreement.
According to Church's official website, the company previously merged with Popeye's Chicken under the AFC Enterprises umbrella, but was bought in 2004 by Arcapita, Inc., another Atlanta-based private equity firm. Since being bought by Arcapita, Church's has pledged to expand their menu and grow the chain from 1,500 restaurants to 2,500 restaurants by 2010.
Such a bold commitment to extending the brand into new markets perhaps explains their motivation to enter into co-branded partnerships with the aforementioned Harvey's, and afore-pictured White Castle.
Thanks Steve!
I have yet to "determine" the answer to my research question, though I have circled around the topic of branding, co-branding and co-brandedness for several months now. I don't think I will ever make a definitive determination on the subject, but I would like to gain a better understanding of how co-branding, especially in advertising for movies, is both a product of our society and a reflection of it.
Raymond Williams has highlighted three distinct levels of culture:
There is the lived culture of a particular time and place, only fully accessible to those living in that time and place. There is the recorded culture, of every kind, from art to the most everyday facts: the culture of the period. There is also, as the factor connecting lived culture and period cultures, the culture of the selective tradition.
These three levels correspond to a social hierarchy of sorts; namely, the lived culture being one of everyday practice and "people," recorded culture being what people leave behind, and the "selective tradition" being administered by those in dominant positions of society, who deem appropriate for inclusion in our cultural history certain recorded practices to the exclusion of others.
In reading the business histories I have encountered during my research, I have developed the idea that this "selective tradition" is, according to themselves, crafted by captains of industry. They are not themselves the makers of our history, nor even are they solely responsible for their own successes. I think the realities of capitalist innovation are far more complex. However, these captains of industry nevertheless cast themselves in this role, as their own histories shamelessly trumpet each and every "lone genius" in the business world, the "first and very best" to accomplish any grand design or scheme, a forger of traditions to be handed down from CEO to CEO for decade upon decade, and on and on forever into the capitalist Utopia of our collective future tense.
In this regard, the business histories are highly uncritical. What's more, they transform by their nostalgia the creative feats of ad men and women acting outside the bounds of corporate policy, the unexpected uses made by consumers of their wares, and indeed even the insatiable appetite of a consuming public, into their own successes. Co-branding is not a thing "invented" by the executives at Yum! Brands, Inc., any more than the VW bus was "invented" to appeal to 1960s hippie counterculture. Yet, this argument is made, more or less, about Volkswagen, in discussions of the now famous ad campaign waged by the Doyle, Dane and Bernbach agency in the 1950s and 60s. The sentiment is paradoxically refrained in the writings of cultural critics such as Thomas Frank, who legitimize the "great man" rhetoric of business histories by wielding the things these men say about themselves ("We created the counterculture") in combat against those "cultural studies" intellectuals who might look for "emancipatory" messages in the commodities of popular culture. In so doing, Frank et al. unwittingly reinforce the authority of captains of industry to forge their "selective tradition."
My friend Kevin is a fan of Frank, and he and I had a discussion about this very thing the other day. Kevin's thoughts on Frank (and he has read much more of it than I have) are significantly more generous, as he sees the argument as a "cultural studies doesn't pay enough attention to economics" one, more than a "cultural studies vs. economics" one. In my reduction of the position, I certainly establish a binary, but ultimately I do still feel like hard core economic "new historicist" Marxism legitimates the tall tales of captains of industry by reading the tall tales as if they were legitimate history. From this point, the Marxist either rails against the tall tale, assuming it is a worthy foe; or, as in the case of Frank, uses the tall tale as a weapon against those engaged in a similar, but assumed to be ineffective, campaign of criticism.
Kevin thinks I am being to post-structural, and maybe that is true.
In the end, I am here, at the end of my summer data collection, with a lot of information, a lot of ideas, and a very strong desire to somehow come to terms with my initial assessment of Will Ferrell's Talladega Nights, and the orgy of consumerism, branding and co-branding that can be read on its surface. Is Ricky Bobby a Stephen Colbert? And does Stephen Colbert effectively or ineffectively critique contemporary conservative politics?
I want to say that Ferrell does a similar thing in "Talladega," that we are dealing with some "next level" political satire, beyond mere irony, post-irony or maybe even post-post-irony...
Those are my thoughts.
Perhaps you remember this spot from 1998, featuring the Taco Bell dog searching for Godzilla and calling, "Here lizard, lizard, lizard..."
The campaign was part of a much larger promotional effort by Taco Bell and its parent company, Tricon, in support of the film, which apparently ended in heartache, or at least led to a wholesale unloading of promotional premiums to then Viacom-owned Blockbuster video.
Blockbuster has since severed its ties with Viacom, and Tricon is now Yum! Brands, Inc.. The 1998 Godzilla film was spun-off by Tristar into a successful animated series.
What's more, Doritos® Brand, a subsidiary of Frito-Lay®, producers of Munchies™ Flamin' Hot® Brand Flavor Snack Mix, has just recently begun running ads that feature footage from the 1998 Godzilla movie.
It all makes sense.
With M. Ritchey away for the weekend performing her music as Manta(r), I have been just taking it real deep with organization of my downloaded source materials, categorization of co-branded ads, and general analysis of "types."
One of these interesting types occurs when brands with fully developed, strong brand spokesmen (Taco Bell, KFC, Revlon, Burger King, et al.) enter into co-branded relationships with readily identifiable film characters. In these spots, the brand spokesman typically interacts with the film character in a way that presumes to be funny, and often is.
I have realized that one good way to communicate this information would be to post the actual ads, and box.net happens to have an online storage service capable of just that. So, here is a public set I am hosting from my Box.net account. The set epitomizes the co-spokesman mode of co-branded address, and I am particularly interested in the Halle Berry/Revlon/007: Die Another Day spot, as Berry is both spokesman for Revlon and new "Bond girl," and acts as both in the ad. Another really incredible spot is the Tricon #1, which features all three spokesmen for KFC, Taco Bell and Pizza Hut, forming a parody of the original Star Wars poster.
I had the realization recently that I actually haven't been paying as much attention to the specific phenomenon of co-branding in recent weeks. I've been reading some theoretical texts, film history books covering the convergence of cinema and TV in the late 1950s, and looking at a lot of electronic press kits from the 1990s. Which is not to say I have been ignoring my topic completely. I have just been thinking about larger pictures in lieu of the smaller picture presented by co-branding.
So, how small is this picture, really? This morning I got the idea to catalog all the co-branded spots I have been able to collect and view, and was surprised to learn that I had surpassed the 100 impressions mark. Of those 100+, about 90 are spots I was able to download from the AdLand archive and other online sources, so I have acquired those commercials permanently. The sample may not be large enough to write a whole book on co-branding, or a PhD. dissertation, but it is potentially enough material for an honors thesis, or, eventually, an exhaustive expansion of the Wikipedia article on brand alliances.
Here are the highlights from my collection, in the form of a 1998 era internet thumbnail chart of random stills. The brand identities come through, somehow, and it is interesting to see all the stills together. This is my research project.
I am definitely inspired to a large degree by the Yum! Brands, Inc. philosophy, and its effects on contemporary fast food restaurant aesthetics. The combination of multiple brands in a single location is a fascinating, and a scary, thing, as evidenced by the above thumbnail chart. A lot of confusion, a lot of brands, and many, many advertising impressions. I think the co-branded model has legs, to be sure, and online social networking sites like MySpace are even making it possible to be friends with brands, not simply consume them.
Or is befriending a brand just another way of consuming it? It is creepy.
Another strangely co-branded moment, out of Christmas season and juxtaposing the "America" brand with "Honda." Pretty weird.
Photo by "Ingeborg" and courtesy Azure, making her way back from Heck Fest 2006.
The Pig'n Pancake is an Oregon-based restaurant chain, but has a menu with graphic brand names culled from the corporate headquarters of food suppliers the nation over. Included on the menu are Simplot fries, Gardenburger patties, etc. What is most striking about the menu is that it not only incorporates these branded components into each dish, but actually uses each logo's font and design on the menu board. This attention to detail creates a truly memorable effect, and I'm grateful to Mike for taking the time to capture it.
If anyone else is having these kinds of experiences, send them to me!! I will interpret.
may23rd2007 AT gmail DOT com
