Its a misnomer really, "to lose oneself". Or maybe it is more often than not, misconstrued. And therein begins the misery of trying to grapple with the multitude of its meanings- almost like being spoil for choice of candy at the store. We like a few of them, and some others not so much- which may be picked up someone else. However, does it matter? Perhaps it does.
Even when Eminem sang his song with the same name, I dont think he meant that we need to lose our true "self" but to lose ourselves in what we truly enjoy and what means most to us. However, we see too often that people will give up everything that defined them and choose a life that they would never have ever wanted or would ever be comfortable with. I say "never ever" only 'cos when a fish is taken out of water, to expect it to survive longer than its possible for it to survive is really very optimistic. It is always good to be optimistic, yes- but there's a fine line between being optimistic and being stupid. Maybe the line isn't that fine.
Humans are very interesting beings and what makes them more interesting is the fact that they can take such decisions which completely go against what is common sense and logic. Perhaps, humans are fond of torturing themselves physically and emotionally. It;s their life so I dont have a problem with people inflicting themselves with pain. However, what I have a problem with is that this self-hatred spills onto areas of their life which affects those who consider themselves close to them. Again, like my strand of individualism, I have a monstrous gargantuan problem for its one thing to hurt yourself but to hurt others for no fault of theirs isn't the mark of a true individualist. And then again, do we want people to care. Maybe they dont, but most often than not, we tend to care. A lot. A lot more than we would like to accept or believe.
So when friends lose themselves, cutting off everything they have done and everyone they have met and loved for a life that they never wanted or their souls would never want to breathe in, it calls for a serious rethink of who you let into your lives. Or who you want sympathise with. Or who you want to give importance in life. Well, we cannot do much when the people we meet and the the people they become seem two different people, but to try and keep them to who they really are is our job as their true friends. But then, do we ever know who they really are if they can get up one day and throw it all away? I guess, thats why we say, "all we have memories"- becomes a very significant line when peope do "lose" themselves. Perhaps it also means that we will always be waiting for them to come back...and that we will always be waiting for them- however late they are. Perhaps.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The "Made in China" Syndrome
"Its the economy stupid."- and it doesn't make any sense. I must make it outright clear I do not mean to offend any race/country/region/culture/etc by what I am about to say and also want to remind the reader that what I usually write about is not what it is actually about.
Ever wondered how many times people make choices governed not on quality and reliability but how cheap something is? And usually something is cheap if it is "made in China" or some other third-world developing nation. Lets see how many issues can come up with such products:
1. If its a well known brand using the cheap labor of China etc, you can be assured that you just paid 200 times more than what the labourer got paid in his sweatshop for making 2000 of those things. And despite that you are paying a dirt cheap price. Ouch! Was that your conscience that got hit in the eye?
2. If its a local brand and if its trying to mimic/imitate a established big name, you know the quality is going to stink because you know that they can have such cheap prices mainly because they are not employing state of the art technology and defintely not the safest or best quality raw materials. Maybe its time to get yourself checked for lead poisoning or cancer?
3. Oh, and I think you may need a replacement soon because the low quality product broke down. It did not come with warranties and now you have to spend some more to get the new one. And when that breaks you may go in for a new one again. And if this one breaks, you will probably realize that you should just buy the original/real deal because you just spent more than double of what it should have cost you in the first place- while all this while you were trying to save some valuable money.
4. In this weird economy, it is hard for Americans to buy American because American produced goods are unafforadable but if they buy Made-in-China goods, they would be hurting their nation's economy while trying to save the money that is immediately available to them. Its a tough choice- but if they consider points 1 to 3, maybe it isnt so hard.
Quality always comes first and companies that provide quality without being overpriced are the ones that will do best. Its the economy stupid, its not rocket science! In this chaotic uncertain times people tend to make too many mistakes and miscalculated financial decisions which they regret later on. People become myopic in their financial visions but it is not entirely their fault- there is all the media hype, the prophecies of economic doom and generally a tendency for bad judgement in times of crisis.
The solution may lay in improving the standards of manufacture in China including better pay, providing safer work environments and generally educating the people of the need to choose good quality. Till people do not realize this, the "Made-in-China" syndrome is going to be a big big problem for those who produce quality products leading to them increasing their prices further to break even or lower their prices obscenely to meet competition and face losses-in the end, the possibility of their extinction is a very near possibility.
Ever wondered how many times people make choices governed not on quality and reliability but how cheap something is? And usually something is cheap if it is "made in China" or some other third-world developing nation. Lets see how many issues can come up with such products:
1. If its a well known brand using the cheap labor of China etc, you can be assured that you just paid 200 times more than what the labourer got paid in his sweatshop for making 2000 of those things. And despite that you are paying a dirt cheap price. Ouch! Was that your conscience that got hit in the eye?
2. If its a local brand and if its trying to mimic/imitate a established big name, you know the quality is going to stink because you know that they can have such cheap prices mainly because they are not employing state of the art technology and defintely not the safest or best quality raw materials. Maybe its time to get yourself checked for lead poisoning or cancer?
3. Oh, and I think you may need a replacement soon because the low quality product broke down. It did not come with warranties and now you have to spend some more to get the new one. And when that breaks you may go in for a new one again. And if this one breaks, you will probably realize that you should just buy the original/real deal because you just spent more than double of what it should have cost you in the first place- while all this while you were trying to save some valuable money.
4. In this weird economy, it is hard for Americans to buy American because American produced goods are unafforadable but if they buy Made-in-China goods, they would be hurting their nation's economy while trying to save the money that is immediately available to them. Its a tough choice- but if they consider points 1 to 3, maybe it isnt so hard.
Quality always comes first and companies that provide quality without being overpriced are the ones that will do best. Its the economy stupid, its not rocket science! In this chaotic uncertain times people tend to make too many mistakes and miscalculated financial decisions which they regret later on. People become myopic in their financial visions but it is not entirely their fault- there is all the media hype, the prophecies of economic doom and generally a tendency for bad judgement in times of crisis.
The solution may lay in improving the standards of manufacture in China including better pay, providing safer work environments and generally educating the people of the need to choose good quality. Till people do not realize this, the "Made-in-China" syndrome is going to be a big big problem for those who produce quality products leading to them increasing their prices further to break even or lower their prices obscenely to meet competition and face losses-in the end, the possibility of their extinction is a very near possibility.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Rebranding revisited
This is going to be one of those few posts where I put forward an objective observation of a subjective topic related to my profession. And it would be something strong that would have provoked me do such a thing- and it was. To put it mildly, it was the plan eyesore of the most recent rebranding that has really ticked me off.
It is the already widely discussed rebranding of Pepsi & company. I was never a big fan of Pepsi as a occasional consumer of carbonated belch-inducing colored water and even less of their marketing campaigns which were tacky, poor in taste and seemed like coming from the mind of a teenager who has smoked way too much pot. It seems like that teenager has just entered college and is getting wasted in every conceivable party he can get to- and Pepsi has hired him again.
First of all I wouldn't call it a full rebrand as it fails in the way it transformed the whole company as a unit- its early days but by what we have seen so far, it doesn't seem to go more beyond this. But lets discuss what damage Arnell has done to the second most popular soft-drinks brand.
The circular Pepsi logo was quite likable and had a million possibilities to be redeveloped- its reinterpretations before this redesign has been quite nice and imaginative. I think they thought that the new design is fun and imaginative. To be fair it is. No, it truly is. For a fifth grader! Smileys? Really? I already thought that Pepsi marketed itself as some wannabe teenage brand and now they are just stepping back even more! The first time I saw the logo, I thought it was a cheap knockoff or something. And then the truth dawned on me. Pepsi screwed up. Big time. It could have made itself more "cool" and "sophisticated" at the same time by employing better sensibilities- for instance the way at&t was rebranded. The two-dimensional logo transformed into a three dimensional globe, lower case, softer colors and addiotion of the color orange- to give a friendlier image and it looks like it will live for the next 10 years. I can understand that Pepsi did not want to look like it copied their rebranding from at&t (expert perhaps the lower case type) but I wish they did. I am also guessing this was probably the decision that Arnell did not make but the Pepsi executives- or I am just hoping, for the sake of design studios everywhere.
The xerox rebrand was similar- the globish-button is not particularly to my liking but I think the whole project was still in better taste and it was sort of a more 'true' rebrand.
One of the more tasteful and complete rebrands-
Pepsi was always associated with blue, white and red (Americana anyone?) but I don't think they ever used it to the full effect or consistently. Look at Coca Cola- u see the bright red and sweeping white letters or forms and you instantly think of them- even if it is not Coke itself! The new redesigned packages Now the new redesign takes pages from Coke's branding- look at the package redesigns- the plain blue, silver and black backs- sure they mean different things but come on, who are you kidding? Its a direct lift off- more or less. Losing some more imagination here Arnell?
Spot the similarities?
Some saving grace comes from the redesign of Mountain Dew but still how much the brand values have changed is really questionable.
Then the other change I saw on the shelves was of Tropicana and realized that it was part of the bigger exercise by Pepsi! Again, the first reaction to the new package was that it looked like a cheap knock off- a new brand that did not seem so confident inspiring in its dull (unripe?) orange with a glass wrapped around the corner. I am sorry but it does not look appetizing one tiny bit- it reminds me more of what happens after you mix too many drinks and do not eat a ounce of solid food. The old package was so much better and friendly- and no, its not one of those random cases where it's hard to accept the new. I love redesigns but this, I am sorry to say, is a step backward.
The entire (supposed) attempted progression to a supposed simplicity seems incomplete and the work- well, lets just say a sophomore could probably pull out a better one out of his/her hat. I don't think that enough research or concept building was done for this whole exercise and perhaps only focus groups were relied upon (if at all) for feedback and study. I think the biggest positive out of this huge miscalculation is that it can be taught as a valuable lesson about how not to go about rebranding something that is already so big in the market. The only reason that the brand will live on and not be affected much is because it is already so big and familiar- and that is the problem. A rebranding exercise is to excite and entice more people but it probably may put off more than few- like me and apparently a big chunk of the design fraternity. If you prefer Pepsi over coke, you probably will still have Pepsi regardless- and that's how it is going to be. The status quo has not been disturbed and that is where the whole exercise fails. And why is that such a big problem? It makes young designers like me disillusioned about what all crap can make it to final production and how much money companies will pay for it! It is, I repeat, not an outrage over something new, but a reflection on the mockery of the values that designers have been told to inculcate every single day of their lives.
And again, I hope it was just the suits who chose the designs though I shudder to think, like my brother pointed out, that if this was considered the best set of designs, how bad were the other designs?
It is the already widely discussed rebranding of Pepsi & company. I was never a big fan of Pepsi as a occasional consumer of carbonated belch-inducing colored water and even less of their marketing campaigns which were tacky, poor in taste and seemed like coming from the mind of a teenager who has smoked way too much pot. It seems like that teenager has just entered college and is getting wasted in every conceivable party he can get to- and Pepsi has hired him again.
First of all I wouldn't call it a full rebrand as it fails in the way it transformed the whole company as a unit- its early days but by what we have seen so far, it doesn't seem to go more beyond this. But lets discuss what damage Arnell has done to the second most popular soft-drinks brand.
The circular Pepsi logo was quite likable and had a million possibilities to be redeveloped- its reinterpretations before this redesign has been quite nice and imaginative. I think they thought that the new design is fun and imaginative. To be fair it is. No, it truly is. For a fifth grader! Smileys? Really? I already thought that Pepsi marketed itself as some wannabe teenage brand and now they are just stepping back even more! The first time I saw the logo, I thought it was a cheap knockoff or something. And then the truth dawned on me. Pepsi screwed up. Big time. It could have made itself more "cool" and "sophisticated" at the same time by employing better sensibilities- for instance the way at&t was rebranded. The two-dimensional logo transformed into a three dimensional globe, lower case, softer colors and addiotion of the color orange- to give a friendlier image and it looks like it will live for the next 10 years. I can understand that Pepsi did not want to look like it copied their rebranding from at&t (expert perhaps the lower case type) but I wish they did. I am also guessing this was probably the decision that Arnell did not make but the Pepsi executives- or I am just hoping, for the sake of design studios everywhere.
The xerox rebrand was similar- the globish-button is not particularly to my liking but I think the whole project was still in better taste and it was sort of a more 'true' rebrand.
One of the more tasteful and complete rebrands-
Pepsi was always associated with blue, white and red (Americana anyone?) but I don't think they ever used it to the full effect or consistently. Look at Coca Cola- u see the bright red and sweeping white letters or forms and you instantly think of them- even if it is not Coke itself! The new redesigned packages Now the new redesign takes pages from Coke's branding- look at the package redesigns- the plain blue, silver and black backs- sure they mean different things but come on, who are you kidding? Its a direct lift off- more or less. Losing some more imagination here Arnell?
Spot the similarities?
Some saving grace comes from the redesign of Mountain Dew but still how much the brand values have changed is really questionable.
Then the other change I saw on the shelves was of Tropicana and realized that it was part of the bigger exercise by Pepsi! Again, the first reaction to the new package was that it looked like a cheap knock off- a new brand that did not seem so confident inspiring in its dull (unripe?) orange with a glass wrapped around the corner. I am sorry but it does not look appetizing one tiny bit- it reminds me more of what happens after you mix too many drinks and do not eat a ounce of solid food. The old package was so much better and friendly- and no, its not one of those random cases where it's hard to accept the new. I love redesigns but this, I am sorry to say, is a step backward.
The entire (supposed) attempted progression to a supposed simplicity seems incomplete and the work- well, lets just say a sophomore could probably pull out a better one out of his/her hat. I don't think that enough research or concept building was done for this whole exercise and perhaps only focus groups were relied upon (if at all) for feedback and study. I think the biggest positive out of this huge miscalculation is that it can be taught as a valuable lesson about how not to go about rebranding something that is already so big in the market. The only reason that the brand will live on and not be affected much is because it is already so big and familiar- and that is the problem. A rebranding exercise is to excite and entice more people but it probably may put off more than few- like me and apparently a big chunk of the design fraternity. If you prefer Pepsi over coke, you probably will still have Pepsi regardless- and that's how it is going to be. The status quo has not been disturbed and that is where the whole exercise fails. And why is that such a big problem? It makes young designers like me disillusioned about what all crap can make it to final production and how much money companies will pay for it! It is, I repeat, not an outrage over something new, but a reflection on the mockery of the values that designers have been told to inculcate every single day of their lives.
And again, I hope it was just the suits who chose the designs though I shudder to think, like my brother pointed out, that if this was considered the best set of designs, how bad were the other designs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)