Lovemarks : Brand Loyalty

There is a book I am wanting and have heard a lot about from various designers, the book is called “Lovemarks” and is put out by Saatchi and Saatchi.

Here is an excert describing what a lovemark is:

How Do I Know A Lovemark?

Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect – but there the similarities end.

Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just can’t live without. Ever.

Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You don’t just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. That’s why you never want to let go.

Put simply, Lovemarks inspire “loyalty beyond reason”

 

People can nominate different “lovemarks” and others comment on how much they love them or show their loyalty etc.  Here is some peoples comments about moleskine notebooks (http://www.lovemarks.com/nomination/146):

 

•  
  • They Got Me!
  • I am guilty of loving Moleskine for no apparent reason other than I just love it. I feel that the quality is superior to other notebooks. Is it worth $18 for a notebook, probably not, but they got me! I spent $35 on Moleskine this week. They are a sleek design and have a nice feel.
  • AaronBMiller, – 11 April 2009
  • Exactly What I Need!
  • The truth is that I am crazy about any kind of notebooks. I feel I need it everywhere at any time no matter what I am doing: working, travelling, chatting, even shopping. I wander among different models never thinking about special brands and Lovemarks. Recenty I came across the Moleskine – that’s changed my mind. I realized that it is exactly what I need! Moleskine offers you fabulous and stylish notebooks! I already have one and I am excited!
  • Julia, Russian Federation – 18 December 2008
  • My Security Blanket
  • Moleskine is the only journal I will ever use. My first Moleskine was in 2006. I would be completely lost without the wonderful books. I don’t write as often as I would like, but just seeing it everyday in my bag is an immense comfort to me. I guess Moleskine is my security blanket.
  • ashley, – 05 December 2008
  • I’m Loving It!
  • More than a notebook, I can’t imagine travelling without my Moleskine. My Moleskine and my iPod are my obsession. I’m loving it!
  • Lara, Argentina – 25 November 2008
  • Won Me Over
  • I have been searching around for a 2009 diary for the following year. My friend mentioned this Moleskine Diary she was itching to have and recomended it so much that we set a date to go get one each. The day before I encountered an old friend who had one. I skipped through hers and felt let down about what my friend had told me about it. Yes, it had beautiful smooth edges. Off white paper, simple design but it did not scream ‘buy me’. That night I set off on my date, deciding that I would end up finding something more colourful and vibrant, more me. When we reached the bookshelf my mind changed completely. The first thing I noticed is the way the book marketed itself as a Lovemark. It was not just a diary. It was a place for you to impress your feelings, ideas, sketches, discoveries and perceptions on paper. The second, the history leaflet inside which associated Picasso and Van Gogh with itself. The third was that it was crafted for me. Handmade but replaceable with any sign of fault. Lastly the small thank you at the end which spoke to me and allowed me to feel as I was in the process of making such a beautiful design. All I can say is that wee booklet inside won me over. I HEART MOLESKINE DIARIES.
  • kisskissbangbang, – 22 November 2008
  • Makes Me Want To Create
  • Yesterday I got my own Moleskine. A funny thing – it makes me want to create something. To write a note, a thought, a quote, to draw, even though I cannot draw. I wonder – how long will it last? How long this true magic will last?
  • Katrin, Russian Federation – 08 October 2008

 

Analyses of ‘Status Seekers’ – By Vance Packard

Over the last month a have been reading Vance Packards ‘the Status Seekers’.  It is an interesting look as the way classes and aspirations work in society.  It was written quite some time ago and about American culture, but i can still see that a lot of the elements describes still apply to many western cultures.

Packard, V. (1961). The Status Seekers. Penguin Books. Middlesex.
1.  “Many other experts in home selling have recently cited “snob appeal” as one of the great secret weapons.   One strategy, he said, is to drop some French phrases into your advertisements.” (Page 61)
The comment is interesting because it suggests that people like to set apart as better than anyone else and will buy into this idea.  The use of French words involves people that speak French, the language of a high class city and a language that high class citizens may take at university to increase their status.
This is talked about as a ‘secret weapon’, as it is very subtle and would not really attract a large audience, but on that token, the small class group would have much more to spend than the general middle class society.

2. “We have, then, a two-dimensional class system.  The horizontal levels are based on prestige deriving principally from such social class factors as wealth, job, education, and style of life.  The vertical divisions are based on the seeming differentness of people caused by their ethnic background, their religion, etc.” (Page 57)
This sums up how Packard divides the different types of class so it is a clear description.  From what I understand, the horizontal levels are things that can be changed, although it make take a lot of determination and hard work, particularly those in lower classes, whereas the vertical levels seem very hard, if not impossible to change.  Ethnic background is something that cannot be changed, and with regards to religion it seems many follow the religion they were brought up in, and sometimes severe consequences could come if they do not follow their family’s beliefs, but ultimately this can be changed.

3.  “Researchers for the Chicago Tribune, exploring the attitudes of people in the semi elite suburb they studied, summed up the prevailing attitude toward homes in this way: ‘You have to look successful.  A house is a very tangible symbol of success… and the residents regard it as a goal and a symbol, as well as something to live in.” (Page 63)
This refers to the house being more than just a place to live, but as a place to exhibit your wealth to all.  People’s desire is to make their house look as expensive as possible from what others see of it, for example; what is visible from the street, entrance way, and lounge/dining room, all that may be seen by visitors and passers by.
This point also talks about the goal of that people generally aspire to having their dream house, as this is an aspect of their life they can parade to others.  I would suggest that this goal belongs to people of all classes but is taken further by those in a higher class.

4.  “A sixteen year old boy from a limited-success family was invited to attend a dance for young folks at a yacht club on the New York England coast.  His mother was thrilled and bought him a new blue serge suit for the occasion.  The boy spent a miserable evening.  Every boy at the dance except himself was wearing khakis and an old sports jacket.  Among the yacht-club set this casual uniform was de rigueur. (Page 123)
Sometimes people can feel out of place because they feel they are a class about everyone else, which can exclude them.  Packard goes on to talk about how many high class men dress down for the weekend while working class people will dress up to shop or even go for a walk.
I recently heard someone say that many well-dressed graphic designers will dress down for a business meeting with clients because it is expected that they are the ‘creative’ people who should stand out from everyone else. 

5.  ”The people who ask us back to dinner are almost always those who regard us as approximate equals in social prestige.  I’m referring here to the social evenings that are relaxed and spontaneous.  For better or for worse, most people feel more at ease with their own kind.”  (Page 150)
Generally people would most likely spend time with people who they feel are equal to them self. When a person hangs out with someone who is considered a lower class, they can be ashamed to be seen with them, yet a person hanging out with someone of a higher class would feel a lot of pressure to impress the other person, therefore cannot relax and have a good time.
This also is true in dating relationships; it is generally common that two people dating have a similar level of attraction and wealth.  I think this is for the same reasons I just stated about feeling most comfortable with your own ‘kind’.

Gender Roles in Advertising 2

The following playschool ad seems like such a blatant  exploitation of the use of gender roles in advertising!  Looking at it now it almost seems like a joke about the use of gender roles.  They promote the dreams children should have; the boys dreams are to run your own business, hit a home run and riding a motorbike, yet the girls ‘big dreams’ are to be a mum or decorate your dream house.

 

 

Gender Roles in Advertising 1

Commodity Fetishism

“There’s no doubt that some kind of enchantment is the goal of advertising, and that many people in rich societies are caught up with consuming. Popular and academic critics agree that consumption structures much in everyday life, including identities, aspirations and imaginations. One influential interpretation of this social fact condemns it as “commodity fetishism,” the idolatry of consumption goods. Commodity fetishism is a kind of perceptual disorder: humans become blind to the pain and suffering embedded in the commodity by virtue of an unjust and exploitative system of production, even as commodities — mere things — appear as active agents capable of commanding attention and determining desire.”

Bennett, J. (2001). Commodity Fetishism and Commodity Enchantment. para 8. Retreived from Project Muse database.

Fetishism is idolising something or obsessing over it. When we talk about commodity fetishism it is to idolise a product, or at least the ideas or image associated with that product as portrayed to us through advertising. Consumers form loyaltys to products such as people define themselves as either a Coke person or a Pepsi person, or a McDonalds person and not a Burger King person etc. In most cases it is not really the taste that is of little difference but we have bought into the associated image and become loyal to the product. This idea seems kind of ridiculous because if we decide to go for Pepsi one day instead of the usual Coke, Coke isnt going to get offended! The loyalty is entirely one way because Coke does not care about the individual when the individual may idolise Coke. We begin to think that we have a relationship with the product but dont notice that this relationship only goes one way.

In the reading ‘Exploring Visual Culture – The Rhetoric of Visual Artifacts’ that i have previously posted about it says:

“In the era of mass industrial production commodities lose their distinctiveness, but fetishism endows them with an aura as if they were unique; although we know that this car, this suit, or this bottle of perfume is one of many identical copies, we still behave towards commodities we own as if they were more than this.”

I found this intersting that sometimes we buy into products so we can be unique but we are really just falling into the advertisers way to sell a mass produced object.

One last point. This relates to both the last part of the quote i started this post with (“humans become blind to the pain and suffering embedded in the commodity by virtue of an unjust and exploitative system of production, even as commodities — mere things — appear as active agents capable of commanding attention and determining desire”) and the following quote from ‘The Rhetoric of Visual Artifacts’ reading:

“In other words, we blank out knowledge of how the artefact came to be produced, thereby fetishing the commodity, as if it had a life of its own”

This made me think of the time I bought some Nike sneakers. It was common knowledge that Nike’s are made in less than optimal working conditions, ie sweat shops, and this was definately not something I wanted to have any part in so I just tried to forget about this as I purchased my shoes, buying the idea that Nike’s advertising produced rather than buying the history of the shoe.

Self-Concious Consumers

I had an interesting discussion with my peers on Friday. It came out of the reading we analysed in class. 

“Packaging, for example, says rather less about the product and rather more about the lifestyle values to be associated with and, ultimately, the identity of the consumer.”

We discussed how sometimes people wont buy particular items they want because they are afraid people will see them buying the product and judge them for it. I noticed a situation during the week when I went to the Warehouse to buy the Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift albums (both preteen pop princesses) and as i was standing in line i was thinking of what excuse i would say if anyone asked why i was buying those albums. I knew of course that no-one would really ask me why but i just felt i wanted to hold a sign saying “they are for my little sister” even though they were just for myself.

One friend mentioned she had heard people who dont care what people think about them do 33% more than people who do care. Which is intersting and quite posssibly accurate as sometimes we dont do things or purchase things because of what others might think of us.

 

Intertextuality in Advertising 1

Intertextuality relies on the viewer already having an understanding of another object, storys, piece of history etc that is being referred to.  The creators will either allude to something that is widely known, or allude to something that their target audience will know about and feel associated with.

Here are some examples of intertextuality in ads:

 This ad contains the shape of contemporary cartoon character, spongebob squarepants, and draws in it the style of the original mickey mouse.  It is used in a clever way to show that watching Tv without a High Definition television is like watching things of the past.

The same applies to this ad for the same HD tv’s.  This image shows the flinstones characters in the style of the Simpsons.

This last ad should be obvious to everyone as it plays on a very popular nursery rhyme.  The last two images, on the other hand, refer to something a bit more subtle, as not everyone will know of spongebob, original mickey cartoons, the simpsons and the flinstones.

Manliness in Advertising

In one of Alans lectures he talked, with regard to Frueds beliefs, about gender roles and sexuality.  He discussed how manlyness is often portrayed by ruggedness, man overpowering nature, speed etc.

Here are some ads that relate to this idea:

 

 

 

 

These last two ads represent manliness and they grab mens attention by suggesting that only brave and manly men can wear this cologne.

(The above ads also contain elements of intertextuality, as well as overcoming the rough terrain and making it seem like desert.

Using sex to sell

The use of sex in advertising relies heavily on the viewers interpretation, this is due to laws around what can be shown and when.  I have seen ads from the Max campaign (shown below) on the sides of buses, and on billboards.  Because the ads dont show anything they are not allowed, the viewer has leave the rest up to their imagination.