Our team received the ultimate compliment this past week when a technology client for whom we had done a complete brand makeover—including visuals, messaging, the whole works—informed us that three potential buyers had been attracted to purchase the company and that the work The Creative Alliance had done contributed to their interest.
OK, enough bragging about my team here, but it goes to make an important point:
Brand building is powerful and profitable.
Crafting a compelling brand out of the right words, messages, visuals and customer experiences results in a higher perceived value of the company or product being branded. Brands are belief systems, repositories of confidence, tools for alignment with customers.
In our client's case the customer was the buyer of his company; for other clients, it's the buyer of bottled water or a corporate aircraft, or a non-profit's need for support. Whatever the transaction looks like, branding is the shared mental model that unites buyer and seller. It creates a shared perceived value of a product, service or company.
The reason branding is profitable is that allows for some amazing advantages in the marketplace:
A strong brand commands premium pricing. Translation: less price-cutting and greater profits.
A strong brand cultivates more loyal customers. Translation: greater lifetime revenue per customer.
A strong brand makes product launches easier. Translation: earlier adoption by customers and faster ROI on R&D.
A strong brand increases employee loyalty. Translation: reduced HR costs.
A strong brand increases the value of a company. Translation: increased shareholder value + more profitable exit strategy.
Which brings us back to our client. The increased competition to buy his company, and its higher perceived value, will far outweigh the investment he made in the branding process. Thousands of dollars invested in branding can sometimes yield hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars in profit.
Given the stock market's recent instability, I think I'd rather invest in branding.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Sunday, October 7, 2007
The Truth About Logo Design
One of the great but largely unknown realities of marketing communications has to do with logo design. When a company is just starting out or perhaps re-branding itself, a lot of attention is paid to the logo design as a means of communicating—projecting, if you will—the company brand.
No doubt, the ability to convey the personality and distinctiveness of a brand is one of a logo's most important uses. But after the new logo is initially unveiled, it faces the long-term task of living and working in the company as an asset that accrues value over time.
That's why we often judge the success of a new visual identity system months and even years after we designed it. If we and the client like it better than ever five years after it was initially introduced, we know it was a winner. (Thankfully that's almost always been the case!)
That's because logos are more sponge than squirt gun. Logos—the good ones anyway—absorb a company's brand equity just as much as they project it. The great ones by designers like Paul Rand (IBM, ABC Television, UPS) might receive a C-minus in art school today, but they are faithful repositories of brands worth billions.
In this sense, a logo is not unlike the Star Spangled Banner. A difficult tune based on a popular British drinking song that ranges an octave and a half, the Star Spangled Banner uses several words many Americans can't even define. (Even the title is a challenge: define "spangled.") But despite its many disadvantages, it has become a unifying symbol, an auditory logo with brand equity beyond calculation. Its ubiquity and repetition have earned it a permanent place in the American psyche. (How many times have you felt that lump in your throat at the song being played or sung in a large crowd with the flag waving in the breeze? My fondest memories of the Star Spangled Banner are as a kid, going to a football game with my dad, because it was the only time I ever heard him sing.)
Of course I'm not saying that a logo should be as difficult to understand as the Star Spangled Banner is to sing, but I am suggesting that a logo's ability to absorb brand equity through frequent repetition is as important as impressing people when it is launched.
It's hard, of course, to project what a logo should look like years or even decades from now, but it's crucial to do so. Just making the effort to do that will keep a company from embracing a trendy look that will seem dated in a few years. A company that is committed to stability, substance and staying power needs to make the statement with its logo that it's here to stay.
If simplicity and a bit of reserve can balance the innovation and novelty that go into the design process, you're probably on the right track.
No doubt, the ability to convey the personality and distinctiveness of a brand is one of a logo's most important uses. But after the new logo is initially unveiled, it faces the long-term task of living and working in the company as an asset that accrues value over time.
That's why we often judge the success of a new visual identity system months and even years after we designed it. If we and the client like it better than ever five years after it was initially introduced, we know it was a winner. (Thankfully that's almost always been the case!)
That's because logos are more sponge than squirt gun. Logos—the good ones anyway—absorb a company's brand equity just as much as they project it. The great ones by designers like Paul Rand (IBM, ABC Television, UPS) might receive a C-minus in art school today, but they are faithful repositories of brands worth billions.
In this sense, a logo is not unlike the Star Spangled Banner. A difficult tune based on a popular British drinking song that ranges an octave and a half, the Star Spangled Banner uses several words many Americans can't even define. (Even the title is a challenge: define "spangled.") But despite its many disadvantages, it has become a unifying symbol, an auditory logo with brand equity beyond calculation. Its ubiquity and repetition have earned it a permanent place in the American psyche. (How many times have you felt that lump in your throat at the song being played or sung in a large crowd with the flag waving in the breeze? My fondest memories of the Star Spangled Banner are as a kid, going to a football game with my dad, because it was the only time I ever heard him sing.)
Of course I'm not saying that a logo should be as difficult to understand as the Star Spangled Banner is to sing, but I am suggesting that a logo's ability to absorb brand equity through frequent repetition is as important as impressing people when it is launched.
It's hard, of course, to project what a logo should look like years or even decades from now, but it's crucial to do so. Just making the effort to do that will keep a company from embracing a trendy look that will seem dated in a few years. A company that is committed to stability, substance and staying power needs to make the statement with its logo that it's here to stay.
If simplicity and a bit of reserve can balance the innovation and novelty that go into the design process, you're probably on the right track.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
The Grouch, the Mole, and the Beetle
One of the undiscovered truths about marketing is the need to show some vulnerability—a weak spot that ends up underscoring the many virtues possessed by a product or a company. This point was brought home to me recently when I heard about the town of Palisade, Colorado's annual Grouch Festival.
This friendly, agricultural town is known primarily for its succulent peaches and other fruit. But according to the Grand Junction Free Press, "the grouch tradition began in the 1970s when the Palisade Tribune publisher and Palisade Mayor Bill Lorenzen began writing articles about how wonderful Palisade was, adding that the population was 850 people and one grouch. The chamber liked the slogan and had a sign erected off the I-70 exit, 'The Palisade Chamber of Commerce welcomes you to Palisade. Peach Capital of Colorado. Pop. 1,700 Friendly People Plus One Grouch.' ”
The emphasis on the one grouch magnifies the friendliness of the town in a winsome bit of reverse logic. It's that little flaw that makes something or someone unique and memorable—two attributes of a great brand. Too often, insecure brands try to look like everyone else and lose their distinctiveness in the process. Think Cindy Crawford without that little mole above her lip. (She actually considered having it removed to fit the traditional view of flawless beauty, yet it became the "flaw" that magnified her beauty.)
Those of you old enough to remember Miss Kitty from the TV western Gunsmoke know what I'm talking about.
Volkswagen has this vulnerability thing figured out. One of the best billboards ever was a picture of a Volkswagen Beetle and the headline: "Zero to 60. Yes." A charming understatement that makes you drop your guard and consider the car's simple but compelling virtues.
That's why when we help build brands for clients, we begin with a process of discovery: asking what fans and foes alike say about a company or a product; what employees, customers, even competitors say with conviction about the brand. In that heap of information is a diamond waiting to be discovered. And that's what great branding is all about: not fabricating a chest-thumping persona that believes its own PR, but rather an authentic discovery of what is undeniably true about the brand, including a weakness or two.
It keeps things real.
This refreshing bit of honesty is what consumers, voters and other types of customers are looking for. It breeds credibility in a world where virtually everyone is trained to filter out marketing-speak. Whether you're playing off of the "geekiness" of your highly qualified tech team or emphasizing that health food nuts won't be comfortable at your BBQ restaurant, find a flaw and explore it for leverage with your audience.
OK guys, you can stop thinking about Cindy Crawford now…
This friendly, agricultural town is known primarily for its succulent peaches and other fruit. But according to the Grand Junction Free Press, "the grouch tradition began in the 1970s when the Palisade Tribune publisher and Palisade Mayor Bill Lorenzen began writing articles about how wonderful Palisade was, adding that the population was 850 people and one grouch. The chamber liked the slogan and had a sign erected off the I-70 exit, 'The Palisade Chamber of Commerce welcomes you to Palisade. Peach Capital of Colorado. Pop. 1,700 Friendly People Plus One Grouch.' ”
The emphasis on the one grouch magnifies the friendliness of the town in a winsome bit of reverse logic. It's that little flaw that makes something or someone unique and memorable—two attributes of a great brand. Too often, insecure brands try to look like everyone else and lose their distinctiveness in the process. Think Cindy Crawford without that little mole above her lip. (She actually considered having it removed to fit the traditional view of flawless beauty, yet it became the "flaw" that magnified her beauty.)
Those of you old enough to remember Miss Kitty from the TV western Gunsmoke know what I'm talking about.
Volkswagen has this vulnerability thing figured out. One of the best billboards ever was a picture of a Volkswagen Beetle and the headline: "Zero to 60. Yes." A charming understatement that makes you drop your guard and consider the car's simple but compelling virtues.
That's why when we help build brands for clients, we begin with a process of discovery: asking what fans and foes alike say about a company or a product; what employees, customers, even competitors say with conviction about the brand. In that heap of information is a diamond waiting to be discovered. And that's what great branding is all about: not fabricating a chest-thumping persona that believes its own PR, but rather an authentic discovery of what is undeniably true about the brand, including a weakness or two.
It keeps things real.
This refreshing bit of honesty is what consumers, voters and other types of customers are looking for. It breeds credibility in a world where virtually everyone is trained to filter out marketing-speak. Whether you're playing off of the "geekiness" of your highly qualified tech team or emphasizing that health food nuts won't be comfortable at your BBQ restaurant, find a flaw and explore it for leverage with your audience.
OK guys, you can stop thinking about Cindy Crawford now…
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A New Role for Print in a Digital World
As with all pendulums, the print versus electronic one may be on its way back toward the print side of things. That's because digital communications—websites, emails, video—have become the norm for many communicators, and print offers a refreshing alternative in some contexts.
The advantages of digital communications are obvious: broadcast emails cost a fraction of snail mail...search-driven marketing is the key to getting the right eyeballs to look at your website...today’s YouTube-esque environment demands that you’d better have a good video clip to accompany your message or risk boring your audience.
But there are some things print can do that no electronic medium can touch, and I mean “touch” in the most literal sense of the word. The truism that electronic literature will never replace print until it can pass the “3 B’s Test” (able to easily be read in bed, on the bus or in the bathtub) is still valid, but this all important portability of print is just the beginning.
Print, by its very nature is a tangible medium. The reader must hold it in order to literally grasp your message. Print constitutes substance and reality in a highly intangible world of digital source code. It sends a subtle but powerful message that the organization described in the printed piece is one of substance, one with staying power and real-world success. (This of course assumes good design, quality printing and smart paper selection.)
The use of print also offers a tactile impression of your marketing message. The sense of touch can be enlisted in the overall audience experience in ways that digital media can't offer. The Internet and television are visual/aural media. But as people become increasingly jaded to the media mix thrown at them, the use of the tactile sense can create an edge over competition that restricts its communications to electronic distribution. The use of textured papers, die-cutting, embossing and other effects can create a truly outstanding piece of marketing communications.
Finally, the print medium offers an element of surprise that websites lack: When doing a Google search, or clicking the “About Us” tab of a website, you pretty much get what you are already looking for. It’s efficient, but you’re not likely to be surprised or delighted by what you find. But magazines and newspapers, despite their limitations, offer a surprise at every turn of the page. You don’t know what story or photo will appear on the next page. There is a sense of flow that develops—a rhythm of perusing, scanning, focusing, reading, and then moving on to the next two-page spread. It’s not to say this is better than a website visit, just different—a different modality by which your audience can interact with your message.
Thus, at The Creative Alliance, we see a renewed role for print in successful marketing communications. Some of our clients are already enjoying great success with the high-end printed pieces we’ve helped them develop, as well as some low-tech, but highly creative printed communications.
In a digital world, there’s nothing quite like a healthy infusion of tangibility.
The advantages of digital communications are obvious: broadcast emails cost a fraction of snail mail...search-driven marketing is the key to getting the right eyeballs to look at your website...today’s YouTube-esque environment demands that you’d better have a good video clip to accompany your message or risk boring your audience.
But there are some things print can do that no electronic medium can touch, and I mean “touch” in the most literal sense of the word. The truism that electronic literature will never replace print until it can pass the “3 B’s Test” (able to easily be read in bed, on the bus or in the bathtub) is still valid, but this all important portability of print is just the beginning.
Print, by its very nature is a tangible medium. The reader must hold it in order to literally grasp your message. Print constitutes substance and reality in a highly intangible world of digital source code. It sends a subtle but powerful message that the organization described in the printed piece is one of substance, one with staying power and real-world success. (This of course assumes good design, quality printing and smart paper selection.)
The use of print also offers a tactile impression of your marketing message. The sense of touch can be enlisted in the overall audience experience in ways that digital media can't offer. The Internet and television are visual/aural media. But as people become increasingly jaded to the media mix thrown at them, the use of the tactile sense can create an edge over competition that restricts its communications to electronic distribution. The use of textured papers, die-cutting, embossing and other effects can create a truly outstanding piece of marketing communications.
Finally, the print medium offers an element of surprise that websites lack: When doing a Google search, or clicking the “About Us” tab of a website, you pretty much get what you are already looking for. It’s efficient, but you’re not likely to be surprised or delighted by what you find. But magazines and newspapers, despite their limitations, offer a surprise at every turn of the page. You don’t know what story or photo will appear on the next page. There is a sense of flow that develops—a rhythm of perusing, scanning, focusing, reading, and then moving on to the next two-page spread. It’s not to say this is better than a website visit, just different—a different modality by which your audience can interact with your message.
Thus, at The Creative Alliance, we see a renewed role for print in successful marketing communications. Some of our clients are already enjoying great success with the high-end printed pieces we’ve helped them develop, as well as some low-tech, but highly creative printed communications.
In a digital world, there’s nothing quite like a healthy infusion of tangibility.
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Good Horse, Bad Jockey
I heard a pretty good quote a couple of days ago:
"A good jockey can't make a bad horse win, but a bad jockey can make a good horse lose."
That's true of marketing. A company that produces mediocre products and delivers poor service won't last long, even if it hires the best marketing minds in the world. The agency may end up with some great work to show off in their portfolio, but the client and their customers are no better off than when they started.
On the other hand, there are some wonderful organizations with dedicated, talented people offering unique products and services, but whose outdated brand is sending a negative signal to potential customers. Or perhaps they do no marketing at all, or the wrong kind of marketing, and are leaving millions of dollars on the table.
In these scenarios, the good horse (the company) is being ridden by a bad jockey (bad marketing). The good horse never gets the chance to win. The fans (customers) never get a chance to see what the horse can do.That's why smart, creative marketing is so important. It gives the good horses a chance to compete. Non-profits, small businesses, multinational corporations…if they’re good horses, they merit a great jockey. They deserve to run and win.
"A good jockey can't make a bad horse win, but a bad jockey can make a good horse lose."
That's true of marketing. A company that produces mediocre products and delivers poor service won't last long, even if it hires the best marketing minds in the world. The agency may end up with some great work to show off in their portfolio, but the client and their customers are no better off than when they started.
On the other hand, there are some wonderful organizations with dedicated, talented people offering unique products and services, but whose outdated brand is sending a negative signal to potential customers. Or perhaps they do no marketing at all, or the wrong kind of marketing, and are leaving millions of dollars on the table.
In these scenarios, the good horse (the company) is being ridden by a bad jockey (bad marketing). The good horse never gets the chance to win. The fans (customers) never get a chance to see what the horse can do.That's why smart, creative marketing is so important. It gives the good horses a chance to compete. Non-profits, small businesses, multinational corporations…if they’re good horses, they merit a great jockey. They deserve to run and win.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Presidential Brands
A great deal of attention was given recently to the unveiling of Barack Obama's new presidential campaign logo. The simple O-shaped mark, while no graphic design award winner, is certainly a big improvement on political candidates' usual typographical treatment of their last names. That's a convention (if you'll pardon the pun) that politicians have used for decades, with the addition of some patriotic swooshes or stars for good measure. But Obama's logo is a real logo in the traditional sense of the word.
The notable exception to using last names as logos, of course, is Hillary Clinton. She's avoiding the word Clinton at all costs for obvious reasons. Instead, she has adopted the use of her first name, suggesting a friendly informality to balance her ambitious persona - a conscious effort at what marketers would call "re-branding." From a creativity standpoint, she's opted to use the conventional typographical treatment of her first name.
So, score one for Obama with his new logo.
This logo business is a harbinger of things to come. The 2008 campaign promises to be the most hyper-marketed, media-saturated, consciously branded, user-generated in history. The visibility and recognition that currently drive money to the various candidates will narrow the field for both political parties, months before the first primary. The attention leads to money, which leads to media attention, which leads to more money. It's a cycle that now controls the entire process.
It's important to note that brands - political or otherwise - are not merely logos or ads or clever slogans. Brands really exist in only one place: the minds of consumers. Brands are belief systems. And since candidates embody those belief systems, they become icons, almost logos in themselves for the hopes, aspirations and self-identification of their followers. And like any logo that goes through multiple rounds of revisions while being designed, the candidates also go through rounds of revisions, including plastic surgeries during congressional recesses, hairstyle updates and revised publicity photos.
But here's where the candidates fail in branding: trying to appeal to everyone.
By trying to attract a sufficiently large base of voters to get elected, the politicos end up standing for very little. They and their opponents all sound remarkably similar, like tired consumer brands with no real personality, offending no one but inspiring no one either. They could all take a cue from Simon Cowell of American Idol fame. The reason people find him intriguing and refreshing is that he actually says what he thinks. Sure, he hurts people's feelings, but his opinion matters because he's not trying to please everyone.
That's the secret to a great brand. Stand for something. Defend that turf at all costs. But leave the rest of the territory to someone else. The reason brands fail is that they, like presidential candidates, try to appeal to everyone. Successful brands - whether they appeal to the high end or the low end of the socioeconomic order; whether they appeal to large business or small business; whether they target young consumers or retirees - have a narrow focus and they stick with it, even if they have to begrudgingly yield market share to competitors going after other segments.
So why don't politicians do this? Sadly, they lack the moral clarity to risk losing the support of people who might disagree with them if they actually took a stand. Large corporate donors don't want to be viewed as extreme (either right or left), so they back the middle-of-the-roaders. It seems this is the only way to get elected these days, but it's a sad statement that also helps explain the narrow margins of the past two presidential elections that have left the country in a state of discord and disunity.
The blandness of the presidential candidates' brands should be a clear warning to them that they are doing something wrong. That's because great brands inspire passion. (Talk to anyone who owns an Apple computer, a Toyota Prius or a pair of Crocs.) The lifeless brands of today's presidential candidates have rendered political passion almost dead.
Public outrage - the kind that would have fostered a successful candidacy like Robert Kennedy's or Ronald Reagan's - has been lobotomized into passivity by Internet blogs and talk radio. That's where all the energy is going. There's no political action on the streets. The public debates once found in the town meeting, the college campus or the downtown soapbox have all but disappeared. What little energy remains is mostly negative, i.e., people that hate George Bush or can't stand Hillary Clinton.
And that's why I think Obama will be the next president. He's not hate-able. Plus he has a cool new logo.
The notable exception to using last names as logos, of course, is Hillary Clinton. She's avoiding the word Clinton at all costs for obvious reasons. Instead, she has adopted the use of her first name, suggesting a friendly informality to balance her ambitious persona - a conscious effort at what marketers would call "re-branding." From a creativity standpoint, she's opted to use the conventional typographical treatment of her first name.
So, score one for Obama with his new logo.
This logo business is a harbinger of things to come. The 2008 campaign promises to be the most hyper-marketed, media-saturated, consciously branded, user-generated in history. The visibility and recognition that currently drive money to the various candidates will narrow the field for both political parties, months before the first primary. The attention leads to money, which leads to media attention, which leads to more money. It's a cycle that now controls the entire process.
It's important to note that brands - political or otherwise - are not merely logos or ads or clever slogans. Brands really exist in only one place: the minds of consumers. Brands are belief systems. And since candidates embody those belief systems, they become icons, almost logos in themselves for the hopes, aspirations and self-identification of their followers. And like any logo that goes through multiple rounds of revisions while being designed, the candidates also go through rounds of revisions, including plastic surgeries during congressional recesses, hairstyle updates and revised publicity photos.
But here's where the candidates fail in branding: trying to appeal to everyone.
By trying to attract a sufficiently large base of voters to get elected, the politicos end up standing for very little. They and their opponents all sound remarkably similar, like tired consumer brands with no real personality, offending no one but inspiring no one either. They could all take a cue from Simon Cowell of American Idol fame. The reason people find him intriguing and refreshing is that he actually says what he thinks. Sure, he hurts people's feelings, but his opinion matters because he's not trying to please everyone.
That's the secret to a great brand. Stand for something. Defend that turf at all costs. But leave the rest of the territory to someone else. The reason brands fail is that they, like presidential candidates, try to appeal to everyone. Successful brands - whether they appeal to the high end or the low end of the socioeconomic order; whether they appeal to large business or small business; whether they target young consumers or retirees - have a narrow focus and they stick with it, even if they have to begrudgingly yield market share to competitors going after other segments.
So why don't politicians do this? Sadly, they lack the moral clarity to risk losing the support of people who might disagree with them if they actually took a stand. Large corporate donors don't want to be viewed as extreme (either right or left), so they back the middle-of-the-roaders. It seems this is the only way to get elected these days, but it's a sad statement that also helps explain the narrow margins of the past two presidential elections that have left the country in a state of discord and disunity.
The blandness of the presidential candidates' brands should be a clear warning to them that they are doing something wrong. That's because great brands inspire passion. (Talk to anyone who owns an Apple computer, a Toyota Prius or a pair of Crocs.) The lifeless brands of today's presidential candidates have rendered political passion almost dead.
Public outrage - the kind that would have fostered a successful candidacy like Robert Kennedy's or Ronald Reagan's - has been lobotomized into passivity by Internet blogs and talk radio. That's where all the energy is going. There's no political action on the streets. The public debates once found in the town meeting, the college campus or the downtown soapbox have all but disappeared. What little energy remains is mostly negative, i.e., people that hate George Bush or can't stand Hillary Clinton.
And that's why I think Obama will be the next president. He's not hate-able. Plus he has a cool new logo.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Mad Men
So I gave the new, highly touted, excessively promoted AMC mini-series Mad Men a try.
The show is described by the network as "an unflinching look at the ad-men who shaped the hopes and dreams of Americans on a daily basis," including "the sexual exploits and social mores of this most innovative yet ruthless profession."
Hmmm, I wonder which part of that pitch AMC is using to sell time to advertisers...
Anyway, after watching two episodes, I am so incredibly disappointed. Bring back re-runs of thirtysomething please. Despite the network's self-congratulatory "behind-the-scenes" promos on the making of the show, with the director's excruciating attention to detail to guarantee authenticity, it has missed the point completely.
The sex-obsessed plot format fails badly on its promise of realism. How much better to show the gritty, real-world creative process...the many dead ends hit until the eureka moment of a great concept. More than a minute or two of the struggle of egos vs. ideas between the office romance and bedroom scenes would be a good start.
The moral relativism of Mad Men certainly evokes the sexism and sins of the era, but it is way out of balance; and it doesn't reflect the better part of the industry's golden age. For example, the king of advertising in that era, David Ogilvy, took a refreshingly moral approach to advertising. Among his notable statements on the advertising craft:
The show is described by the network as "an unflinching look at the ad-men who shaped the hopes and dreams of Americans on a daily basis," including "the sexual exploits and social mores of this most innovative yet ruthless profession."
Hmmm, I wonder which part of that pitch AMC is using to sell time to advertisers...
Anyway, after watching two episodes, I am so incredibly disappointed. Bring back re-runs of thirtysomething please. Despite the network's self-congratulatory "behind-the-scenes" promos on the making of the show, with the director's excruciating attention to detail to guarantee authenticity, it has missed the point completely.
The sex-obsessed plot format fails badly on its promise of realism. How much better to show the gritty, real-world creative process...the many dead ends hit until the eureka moment of a great concept. More than a minute or two of the struggle of egos vs. ideas between the office romance and bedroom scenes would be a good start.
The moral relativism of Mad Men certainly evokes the sexism and sins of the era, but it is way out of balance; and it doesn't reflect the better part of the industry's golden age. For example, the king of advertising in that era, David Ogilvy, took a refreshingly moral approach to advertising. Among his notable statements on the advertising craft:
- "Never run an advertisement you would not want your own family to see."
- "Never write an advertisement which you wouldn’t want your own family to read."
- "You wouldn't tell lies to your own wife. Don't tell them to mine."
It is also important to note that the chauvinistic culture depicted in the show, while clearly the dominant paradigm of the era, was not the only model for gender roles. In fact, as early as 1912, a group of women formed the League of Advertising Women of New York, the first U.S. professional association for women of its kind. There have been many female pioneers in advertising and marketing whose contributions get overlooked in the stereotyping approach of a show like Mad Men. It would be nice to see the show depict this reality. A good plot line would involve a smart, savvy woman putting all those male chauvinists in their place with a big creative idea that trumps their traditional Madison Avenue thinking.
But hey, I'm not a director...I'm just working in the real world of marketing, helping clients who are a whole lot nicer than the ones on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
