Bodonation

Video from Pleix + Blink, featuring music from Vitalic.

Watch video.

Alan Fletcher (1931-2006)

I’ve just learned that my design hero, the living legend, Alan Fletcher has passed away on Sep 21 in in East Sussex, England. He was 74. Few days ago, I was still talking about inviting him as a speaker in one of my future conferences, if I ever get the chance.

But now he is gone.

Sad.

Born 1931 in Nairobi, Kenya to a British family, Alan went on to form Fletcher/Forbes/Gill in the 1960s, which eventually morphed in 1970s into what is Pentagram today. He was also one of the founders of D&AD, which became an important organisation for advancing and promoting British design. His works left an indellible mark on modern graphic design, not just on complex corporate identity programmes, but also on posters and book covers, where his spontaneous graphic wits and humor often shine through.

Steven Heller wrote in New York Times:

He died wearing a T-shirt with handwritten words taken from one of his
posters: “I don’t know where I’m going, but I’m on my way."

Quoting Times UK:

Fletcher once said that he hoped “to get younger as I get older”, and
succeeded. Intellectually open and insatiably curious, he was the
antithesis of a grumpy old man, and befriended many younger designers.

As for me, I wish I had the honour to know him in person, not just owning a copy of The Art of Looking Sideways.

But it is too late.

* Reports at Pentagram, Design Museum, Guardian, Times, and The Independent.
Read the online tribute to Alan Fletcher hosted by Creative Review, includes postings by Brett Wickens, Erik Spiekermann, Michael C Place, Michael Johnson and Vince Frost. Read Michael Johnson’s memoir here.

* Update - Sep 28, 2006 - Design Observer - Michael Bierut.

Yesterday Lonelygirl15 posted her last videoblog on YouTube.

Have you heard of Lonelygirl15? That is the most subscribed channel on YouTube. Featuring a 15-year-old girl with overly religious parents, Lonelygirl15 rebels by talking secretly to the world via her web cam, in the format of videoblog. Shot mostly in her bedroom (with occasional videocam stuff), she leads people into her life through her compelling, dramatic, emo-filled stories (about boyfriend, parents, driving lessons, etc).

Her fan base started with teenagers, and eventually grew to 6.7 million subscribers.

While voyeurs are enjoying their glimpse into the life of a young girl, they weren’t prepared for what was going to hit them.

Lonelygirl15 is an actress (Jessica Rose Lee) hired to do this stint as a promotional video for an upcoming unnamed film. Whatever that was video-blogged came from professional scriptwriters. The use of youtube and the "psst, i saw an interesting videoblog today…" campaign were part of a well-planned meticulously-executed viral marketing communications.

AdAge commented:

"The incident is the latest in which marketing communications
professionals have invested significant amounts of their time, skills
and money to create fictional events that have been presented to the
online world as if they were factual. Some critics say that the
practice is helping establish the online media space as a place where
readers and viewers can’t really trust what they see or hear, no matter
how authentic it looks. Others argue that in the new upside-down world
of consumer-controlled world of media and advertising, anything goes so
long as it works."

Leaving aside the questions of ethics in advertising and communications (i.e. fooling viewers into becoming consumers), it agains confirm what I have been observing - this is where marketing communication is heading.

The keyword is total engagement. The result is measured by effectiveness.

Utilising a free service like YouTube, a Lonelygirl15 campaign generated 6.7million subscribers (the number is still growing). A very successful campaign, if compared to big budget promotions in which slick movie trailers and campaign posters for major studio release start as early as one year in advance.

If we measure money invested and return on investment (ROI), then this campaign is effective. It used the right media (free sharing YouTube), spoke to the right audience (young teenagers) and generated the desirable result. It is not a touch-and-go campaign. Judging by the many videoblogs made in response, it will have the momentum to grow on even after the movie is released.

Too often we do communication design/advertising as a delivery vehicle for a one-liner punch joke. A typical issue of Lurzer’s Archive carries many of these: One big funny/shocking/depressing picture, one line of witty copy and a logo at the right hand corner. One shall look at the ad, read the copy, laugh (or cry), and then see the logo (if it is big enough), and move on.

Ours is a culture where we are evolving into self-censorship machines. I can’t remember what were flashing as banner ads on my gmail or yahoo or friendster page when I logged in 5 minutes ago.  I don’t watch TV programs with TVCs. I flipped through newspapers without looking at ads. Funny. We are surrounded by media filled with ads and we can’t seem to remember what products they were.

The way forward is to rethink about how to engage customers in a new way.

Not to push products into their life but to make consumers come to the products. Rethink marketing. Rethink branding. Rethink communications. Always ask "why?" Because I suspect many of the things we produce do not communicate nor engage.

(I saw so many Kancil entries piling up in my office and they made me wonder.
I guess some of the works will still perform the job known as "Hmm, what is this? Oh. I get it! So clever." Some will work further: "Real clever idea! Maybe I will give it a gold." Question: Why can’t there be something that engages the judges even before the judging starts, and won’t stop even after the judging stops. There must be something out there that will speak to the judges, just like how lonelygirl15 won 6.7million people.)

To all you people who commited RM65 today, good luck.

(If you really want to know where marketing communications is heading, visit these sites: strawberryfrog, naked communications,  droga5, contagious magazine, erasmus, tom savigar, the viral factory, campfire)

The ultimate present for a typofreak. (A nice pillow for a typo dream).
The 4th edition and the first major revision in 8 yeas.

• Weight: 3kg (6.6 lb)
• Height: 29.7 cm (11.7 in)
• Width: 15.5 cm (6.1 in)
• Pages:  1,760
• Type Samples:  32,000
• Type Foundries:  90
• Cross-references:  7,400
• Other References:  100,000

About RM450.00

I will be putting in my self-indulgent order. Anyone else?

Check out the pages:
Sample pages: Download

(2.1mb pdf file)
Introduction to how Fontbook works: Download (1.5mb pdf file)

Erik Spiekermann and Tobias Frere-Jones had FF Meta Black cut in wood!
Possibly the first digital type that went back to production in woodcut.
Very nice. (original post from fontshop belgium)

Do a quick survey. Bottled carbonated mineral water - would you buy it?

If you run this survey and compile the results, most likely you will get a
negative for an answer. Why on earth would I want to drink carbonated mineral water?

How about this: combine all the leading sports and fashion brands such as Polo
Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Nike, Fila, Lacoste and Adidas, put them under
one e-commerce website, and target it to web-savvy, fashion-conscious 18 to 24
year olds. Give them the flashiest shopping experience and offer competitive
pricing and free returns if customers are not happy with the products.

At that time (1999) research shows that the spending on such products by the
target group was estimated at USD60b, and online shopping (UK alone) is
£600 million. It should be relatively easy to capture a small fraction of
USD60b and make this a viable venture. In fact, it was forecasted that the
company should be generating USD$51.9 million within 3 years time. Based on positive
research studies, investors such as JP Morgan, LMVH Investment and Benetton
pumped in USD130 million to fund this new setup.

The carbonated mineral water in question is Perrier, that awfully
expensive sky-juice which
restaurants serve. The fashion site is boo.com. If you have
never heard of it, it’s alright. Within 6 months, it went bust. (boo.com
started at November 1999, closed at May 2000, case documented here).

So I am pitching two scenarios here: An idea which research suggests
premature death but has been doing pretty well so far, and the other which
research suggests guaranteed success but failed within 6 months. Zero target
audience vs. USD60b potential spending power. Zero brand existence vs. an army
of highly visible brands.

I have been rethinking about the role of research in creative work.

When I was a university student doing a degree in Economics, research was an
integral part in school work. It provided the backbone (the data, the
statistics and the studies) for deriving insights to deliver properly
structured papers. Camping daily in the library and crunching out stats on the
uni’s computer lab were regular routines.

However, in the creative business, research is an over-emphasised and
over-glorified process that stumbles many designers. I do not deny that
research provides valuable information about target markets and helps refine
communications objectives. I also know submitting design proposals with a heavy
stack of research findings is super impressive (even though I suspect clients
would never get down to read the research findings - the findings are important
supporting documents to validate a higher consultancy fee).

In the creative business, many times we are looking for that special insight
that would spark off a creative direction which could be translated into a
communicative message, strong enough to help the product/services break
away from their competition.

This is how I see it:

(1) Research is useless. Products and services are generally homogenised. Demographics
studies are inconclusive (do you belong to the age 18-25 group with disposable income
in excess of RM1000 per month? If your answer is no, then how do you explain
yourself being a consumer that spends more than RM15,000 per year on school
fees alone?). Most of the time we "already" know the product/services
and we "already" know the challenges faced. Research will not provide
any additional information that will act as the differentiator - so why waste
the time?

(2) A more effective method would be to ask intelligent questions instead of
relying on creative briefs and supplied information. Fish around for specific
insights, since the client would know his products/services well enough. But
like point (1) - many times this will not bring anything new.

(3) Based on existing information, the priority should be on gaining some
new consumer insights which could be used as a direction for creating a
communications program that would connect to the consumers’ emotions.

(4) Research is a very academic thing preached by schools and intellectuals.
It provides an aggregated and cumulative understanding. It is a logical path to
general problem solving. However communications design is about dealing with
real human with all their irrationality. It is to connect on a unique personal
level.

(5) Creative business is about finding that consumer insight that would
provide the emotional connection between the consumer and the
products/services. 

For example:

Different brands of cheese are available at the dairy products section in a
typical supermarket. In reality, research will show that there isn’t much
difference among the brands. However some creative person found that
"special insight" about calcium being good for strengthening bones
(and baby’s bones). That was the insight which Kraft used to connect to
customers’ emotions. The emotional pitch - Kraft cheese is high in calcium,
hence good for your bones - boosted the sales figures. What consumers weren’t
aware off is that all cheese is high in calcium,
not just Kraft.

The same goes to the creative who had an insight about consumers buying
vans/mpvs because they wanted space. It was really nothing revolutionary -
space is the reason why people buy vans anyways. However the insight was pushed
further and resulted in the successful Toyota Unser campaign, which positioned
Unser as “spacious”. I supposed the majority of Unser owners never measured the
space of their vehicles against other vans/mpvs. And even if they do, Toyota never claimed to
be the “most spacious”, just “spacious”.

My point is: Research can only provide a generic overview but will not bring
new insights about cheese, vans, soft drinks, car loans, housing loans,
mooncakes, tea, coffee, shampoo, etc. Most likely there would be many
variations of a similar product, and that variation would not be significant
enough to influence buying decisions. The client would most likely know that
they are competing against similar products, but they have no way of adding a
differentiator to their products/services. The creative person’s job is to find
that unique insight and translate that into a communication message that
connects emotionally to the target audience.

In my formula:

((research)+(analysis)) > insight >
brand communications > emotional connection.

Research + analysis could be dropped sometimes and be replaced with common
sense, hence the revised formula:

(common sense) > insight > brand
communications > emotional connection.

We are in the business of creative thinking and this requires more than mathematics
and science. Before embarking on another research, perhaps the question asked
should be what are the expected results from conducting the research? If one could
have roughly guessed the results, I suspect the efforts could be better used
somewhere else, like being the creative thinker instead of being the
researcher.

Paul Hughes commented that designers in US see graphic design as problem solving. Generally true (and many schools preached this), except that this understanding of graphic design would collapse when there are no problems to be solved.

Just like the army which has no function at all if there is no war, except for doing the annual merdeka day parade.

So, what if graphic design if not about problem solving? Paul proposes a process that should generate opportunities. Not just solving problems but also generating opportunities along the way.

I like this observation. It is something which summarises my approach to doing work, except that I never had the moment to pause and think about what do I really do as a graphic designer.

Now I am motivated and compelled to put down my design journey so far in writing.

1: The contractor.

When I started off as a designer, I didn’t know what I was doing. Or perhaps I was too immature to understand what I was doing. I was enjoying the thrill of producing brochures, leaflets, annual reports, books, corporate profiles etc. It was nice to see works being printed - the excitement of unwrapping printed samples freshly delivered from the printers which carried that wonderful printing-ink smell. I had creative briefs from clients, but I can’t seem to find those as problems where I am required to produce solutions. “We need a catalogue to showcase our new plastic chairs”. “We want a nice brochure to sell our new property”. Being entirely honest, I have viewed all these creative briefs as merely opportunities for me to explore new grid systems, new art directions, new photography, new paper, new ways to fold a brochure, etc. Clients want brochures, hence I produce nice brochures and everyone will be happy. That would be the end of a story.

I thought I was a good graphic designer. Actually I was more of a good graphic contractor working like the contractors in renovation business - providing the best plaster ceilings as according to specs; laying down the firmest and flattest cement floor, again, as according to specs. Like graphic designers, tasks are outsourced - to plaster ceiling specialists, or flooring specialists. It doesn’t matter, as the client knows he will be dealing with the contractor.

Arguably, contractors could be problem solvers too.

2: The architect.

It was after a few years of working with Andersen Consulting (now known as Accenture) and going through their rebranding exercise that I realized graphic design is more than design. This started the phase where I find myself constantly at struggle with what I am doing (the contractor) and what I should be doing.

It revolves around the issues of branding. Leaving aside my viewpoints on branding for future postings, here’s how things changed.

“We need a catalogue to showcase our new plastic chairs.”

Instead of saying, oh, ok, will do you a nice catalogue, I started throwing back questions to clients.

“Would you be continuing to produce chairs and would they be in similar direction?”
“Do you want public to see the chairs as good products by themselves without having to know which manufacturer produced them?”
“How would the chairs be labeled, packaged and displayed? Do you want the brochure to reflect some of that?”
"How would you rank your chairs - above Pasar Malam quality and below Old Klang Road?”
“Whom would you be passing the catalogue to? Oh, your resellers. How does your reseller perceive your products? Should your brochure be in line with past catalogues or do you want something entirely new to break away from the old stuff?”

And so on.

These are essential questions to establish the branding of products/services. I became a believer of looking at branding and brand identities before graphic design kicks in. This approach invited troubles, as generally, it is not the preferred method of working in graphic design.

“I just want a chair catalogue that we are launching next week. I don’t know how to answer your questions. Can you just give me a nice catalogue?"

Tough.

Instead of being a contractor I was trying to play architect. I wanted to build a house which caters for the client’s needs in the future - factoring in the number of rooms and washrooms needed, the positions of windows and doors, the installation of wiring and plumbing systems down to the trees that are supposed to be planted now so that it would grow into beautiful shades for the future.

But the client just needed a room and some wallpaper for his room.

I was fortunate to have a few clients who understood, but generally I became disillusioned about the business known as graphic design.

3: The developer.

I used to be addicted to Simcity.

Simcity starts with a piece of predefined land. The gameplay: Divide the residential, commercial and industrial zones; Make them attractive for humans to move in, then improvise and continue to monitor; Tear down abandoned and aging buildings (built out of early mistakes); introduce new amenities - parks, cinemas, casinos, whatever to sustain growth. And remember to monitor power grids, water supply and pollution levels.

I’d like to imagine the client being a piece of land. As a designer I am providing content for the client to continue to grow. Each individual component from the content designed would take on its own branding and identity but would converge to contribute to he overall growth. The content has to be engaging - it should invite end users to participate repeatingly. The content is not limited to communications media. The content is not static, it has to be constantly updated refreshed and improvised.

Working like this not only allows me to play the developer (the content provider), but allows me the freedom to occasionally play architect (building the framework for the content) and also the contractor (implementing the content).

This process of playing developer makes designing fun.

But is this graphic design? I am not so sure.

(If you are here, you have just read a 1000 words blog entry, proving that designers do read. Thank you. I would however love to know your thoughts on this subject matter, and if you are the type that hates all things cheesy about registering a friendster account just to write a comment, do send me a mail).

(By popular request)

Neville Brody.

(For Jesmin, as per promised)

Vince Frost.