Cannes got the Design Gran Prix Wrong. Yep. I said it.
First let me digress. My overall opinion about advertising and design award shows is a combination of the opinions expressed by Jeff Goodby, Gerry Graf of Saatchi & Saatchi and Micheal Iva of Qually & Company. Like Goodby, I think too many agencies do insignificant work designed to win awards and this ghost/spec/scam work is not in the best interest of the agency or the client or the industry. (See FP7 in Dubai.) However, I think his philosophy forgets that there are a lot of smaller agencies out there doing work for smaller clients where it is impossible or drastically more difficult to do ‘famous work.’ But his point is taken. The work that wins should be significant. Graf recognizes the shows (specifically Cannes) as a source of inspiration within the industry and doesn’t seem to mind as much or take it too seriously. Iva on the other hand, recognizes that the award shows exist as little economies, making money by stroking the sensitive egos of creatives and in some cases other agency professionals. I see the benefit of recognizing excellence in any industry, but think that most shows lean heavily towards large agencies and large clients but do generally a good job separating the wheat from the chaff. Because of the festival’s film ties and international scope, Cannes has become the award show to win. Nab a gold lion and your career will never be the same. So there’s that. For advertising it’s the One Show and Cannes. For Design it’s Cannes and D&AD. These still feel like the more important shows, no matter your perspective on their worth.

Okay after that rather long tangential introduction...
The winners have been announced at the 56th International Cannes Lions Advertising Festival and I thought I would comment on the Design Lions awarded earlier this week. Not because I am any better than the judges of course, just because these are the things that make working in advertising/design fun. There was a lot of good design work on display this year (maybe a better overall year than last) though none with the significance (see Goodby link above) of 2008’s Grand Prix winner – Turner Duckworth’s Coke redesign. This year’s winner, an entry from McCann Group Hong Kong for Nike basketball, is worthy of further discussion and inspection.

Nike’s Paper Battleground.
Let me say from the start that I don’t believe this work deserves a bronze, let alone the Grand Prix in this category. What I will try to do next is explain why I think I’m right and why judges who are far more famous than me got it wrong. It’s easy to be a critic, but I’m more than willing to stick my neck out on this one.

First, let’s take a look at the entry video.


“The posters became the battlefield. The random cross-printing. The battles. More importantly, the process became the message.“

Okay, so basketball players from the Nike league in China were brought in to print their image on a poster, only to have other players print their image on top, and then again more players printing their images on top of that creating a printing battle that resulted in 350 uniquely colorful and layered player imagery. A cool approach indeed, bringing the competition from the court into the process of making the event posters. That much I get. I can also see how the process behind this work could influence judges into liking it, if you focus on the behind the scenes video you can easily get wrapped up in the process - as - message schtick. The only problem with this is that the result kinda sucks, to be blunt. The posters are a big let down given the thought that went into the process. As designs they cannot stand on their own at all, at best being decent colorful eye-candy but at worst being somewhat derivative in their look from a thousand others. More clearly, there is nothing new here visually. Nobody on the street is going to know the background of these pieces, which is the only thing about them that is more than mediocre.

Here is the Full-sized Entry.

Here are a few of the 350 'eh' posters.





Emphasizing the process is nice, but only when the resulting work is equally extraordinary. I bet I could train a gorilla to parachute out of a plane while painting a poster set in red helvetica on white, and that process would be truly engaging – maybe even groundbreaking, but if it ends up looking like a zillion other Swedish inspired posters than would it be worthy of a Gran Prix? Please. What I think happened here, ironically, is that the video submission behind the work is actually pretty good advertising for a mediocre design product. It sells the design pretty hard. So maybe that is what should have been entered instead, but in the film category. It might get a bronze there.

Here’s a few pieces winning Gold that could easily have won Grand Prix.

Jamie Oliver Food Kits – Williams, Murry & Hamm. (London)

The Zimbabwean Currency Posters – TBWA\Hunt Lascaris (S. Africa)
(This entry won the Grand Prix in Outdoor.)

Regional Tax Collection Agency: Piglet – F33 Murcia (Spain)

Nick Germany Idents - dyrdee Media Berlin
(I love, love, love these. View videos here.)

Nice preview featuring design jury Sylvia Vitale Rotta of Team Creatif and Marc Shillum of R/GA. They discuss design entries as compared to ad entries that are designed. A good quick read. Interesting to see what wins. (via Creativity)

 

Give a little context to an art exhibit and it's meaning can be amplified a thousand times. Artists Steinbrener/Dempf have placed various symbols of human civilization inside the animal enclosures at the Schönbrunn Zoo in Vienna — creating a powerful installation called Trouble in Paradise. The six pieces are designed to contrast our idealized image of wildlife and the harsh reality of habitat destruction. From the artists, "We are experimenting with visualisations of social issues. Our understanding of sculpture in a broader sense denotes heterogeneous and dynamic shapes which are exposed to concrete, social and symbolic influences."

Obviously, humans are more than just spectators when it comes to our relationship with animals and this point is hammered home by a poignant concept. Well done.

Car Prop Before Installation:

Alligator Enclosure:

Aquatic Oil pump:

Late last week the city of Cincinnati revealed a new city logo to adorn vehicles, signage and collateral. The new identity features a modern, swishing capital C of various blue and green gradients. According to officials on Ohio.com, the mark gives the city a more inviting image and also shows progressive movement and pride. And like most municipalities, an official seal will still be used on more formal applications. In design terms, the mark feels like it would be more at home on a software box (this isn’t necessarily a complement) than a welcome sign, but does leave an overall positive impression. Even if the actual design isn’t anything special, maybe even terrible given the weird typography and congruent C’s, it’s easy to see how this mark could be used to present a consistent message to visitors. Cincinnati is moving, adapting, growing and changing. Got it. Good. (Brand New has a decent write-up on this.)

The New Cincinnati Logo:

There is an interesting little background story to be told too. LPK – a well respected branding firm in Cincinnati – designed the new combination mark, but Macy’s (also based in the city) paid for the development costs, which according to cincinnati.com was estimated to be around $75,000. (Probably this is mostly in time and soft costs, but cost nonetheless.) In effect, the city was a pro bono project for the the LPK, which is a little weird, but understandable. If you are based in a certain place, you want to see that place thrive and develop civic pride. A logo can become the focal point for such things. Both Macy’s and LPK have a vested interest in seeing the city prosper and grow. But more cities should consider themselves as businesses, businesses that need to market themselves on a national and global level. And businesses that need a finely tuned personality with a look to match.

A small number of cities have put the time and energy to develop their brand, and even fewer a good identity to match. And by identity, I don’t mean the official seal (mentioned above), I mean a communication mark that attempts to communicate the personality of the city. And precious few city councils have taken the time to pin down what their city stands for, though that would be a great place to start. I have collected a small number of municipalities that have attempted to design such a mark, with varying degrees of success. Ultimately of course, it’s not the design that will be the deciding factor in the success a city will have in attracting visitors, residents and businesses. But it certainly plays a part. On the state level things tend to be more organized for tourism purposes, but you don’t move to a state, you move to a city. Over time, I think we’ll see more and more locales working with their local design studios, ad agencies and firms to present their best side to the world, and not just in cities where tourism is extremely important (like Las Vegas). With tax revenue decreasing, the landscape is only going to become more competitive.

A few examples that I have noticed are located at the bottom of this post.

(Contributions to this list are very much welcome.) Some of these are actually kinda nice.

 

Now, this is pretty cool. At the World Wide Developer's Conference (WWDC) in San Francisco this week, Apple put together a live wall featuring 20,000 of the most popular iphone applications, sorted by color. When an app was downloaded off their site, it would animate in real time (or on a delay of real time) as a ripple effect across the screen. Quite an impressive little exhibit display for sure. The intention was to reinforce WWDC attendees that 3,000 apps are downloaded every minute - and to encourage developers to engage with this format. More information can be found at AppleInsider, where I pulled the following photos. Video via YouTube.

 

 

 

 

I had the opportunity to go to the National Addy Awards this weekend in DC. (The national Addys are the bracket style creative awards from the American Advertising Federation (AAF), where the winners from local and regional shows advance to the final round.) I had a spot win a silver award, but that's not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is to show the Best of Show winner, not because it won Best of Show, but because I agree that it should have won Best of Show. Oftentimes the winner is controversial, in an 'easy' category, or arguably - simply not as good as other entries. But this year the judges got it right.

The winning spot is a sweet take on a somewhat standard lottery strategy of just think of what you could do with the money. The interesting concept and perfect execution of the spot saves the strategy weakness and leaves the viewer with a larger than life, almost philanthropic feel. Simply put: it makes you feel good inside. And consider buying a lottery ticket, of course.

Washington Lottery's - Bird:


Credits go to Publicis West (Seattle) who sat right in front of us during the show and seemed like good chaps. There is also a nice behind-the-scenes post from Fischer Edit, the group responsible for some of the post work. Congrats guys - a well deserved win.

Verisimilitude. I had an old communications professor who used this word a lot. (At the time I thought it sounded like a $50 word only someone with a Ph.D. would use. Maybe I still feel this way.) Anyway, It means roughly having the appearance of being true or real. Taken in context, it’s usually used to describe something that is genuine. Verisimilitude is an important quality for an advertiser to convey — that is to say, it is important for a campaign to have at least a little truth at it’s core. This makes whatever exaggeration and theatrical liberties inherent in the concept, as relevant to the audience as they are entertaining. Verisimilitude is what makes a lot of ads work. Simply put: they’re believable.

An advertiser (or agency) can get into trouble when they neglect reality for a substitution of their own making. I don’t expect all ads to be realistic in terms of creativity. Of course a lot of campaigns are far flung fiction — but if they are to be effective — they must somehow communicate a truth. When this is neglected bad things happen. Take for instance the tv spot described below:

Imagine a commercial that opens with a retro full-size van crashing through a wall and skidding down the road to the tune of a vintage tv show soundtrack. You then see clips of other older vans busting through fences, jumping ravines, doing burnouts and generally being driven with reckless abandon as if in action sequences of shows long since cancelled. As a matter of fact, you even recognize one of the vans as the one featured in the A-team, the show that gave Mr. T claim to fame. This is a pretty cool spot you think to yourself as the words Respect The Van appear on the screen.

But then a Honda minivan slides into a titlecard and the tagline The Van’s still Rockin’ appear to make a complete mess of it. “This is a minivan commercial?” you say to yourself.

Yes, this is actually a real spot.

Honda Odyssey's Respect the Van:



The footage you just watched featured a bunch of full-size domestic vans. These vans were made by GMC, Dodge and Ford. And most of the clips did come from old sitcoms. They were cool to be sure, but have absolutely nothing at all to do with minivans. Or more specifically, Honda minivans. It appears that the company is stretching to make their product relevant by attaching it to the nostalgia of the big bad vans of ‘70s pop culture with which it had absolutely nothing in common. Watching the spot again, it’s easy to see how this would actually be a great spot for a Dodge or GMC Van (bankruptcy not withstanding).

If the only thing ‘cool Honda can say about its minivans is that if you close your eyes and use a little imagination it is in some small vague way similar to vans of the past – that’s not a good thing. The old vans were somewhat worthy of the respect, being the gaudy hotrods of their day. The comparison only highlights the silliness and unmanliness of the Odyssey. By comparing they are actually contrasting. In fact, the campaign kinda makes me want to go out there and buy a real van. (Maybe the same thing happen to Portland designer, Aaron Draplin.)

Here is another spot in the campaign, and it could be argued that it's even worse.


Generally, I’ve been a big fan of a lot of Honda’s advertising over the years, But selling the minivan as the modern incarnation of these loud, hippy rides is just not believable. It lacks a reality check. It's terrible advertising because it lacks much needed verisimilitude. So, this is a lesson to agencies and advertisers alike, your branding must be authentic for it to resonate.

Sometimes words make a big difference. A word carries with it the baggage accumulated throughout history along with the modern context in which it is used. Paula Scher touched on this during a recent TED Conference speech (bottom) where she talked about her best work being serious but not solemn. Meaning: we should be doing something important but we can also have fun while doing it. It’s a great talk and well worth watching. But I’ve noticed two other words that are often used as synonyms but — in terms of communication design — they could not be more different.

Simple. Easy.

Looks these words up in a thesaurus and they’re often the first entry you get for each other. But they’re really not synonyms. Let me clarify.

Putting a ball through a hoop is simple. As in: I understand the task (putting the ball through the hoop) and I understand what I need to do in order to accomplish it (ie: the ball must go up and through the hoop.) However simple putting a ball through a hoop may be – it’s not easy. People are paid lots of money because they are good at something that is anything but easy. And even the best basketball players in the world only ‘put the ball through the hoop’ at a 40 – 45% rate during a game. It’s simple. But it’s not easy.

When mentoring design students I often push them to come to a simple solution. But I have to explain to them what I mean, as simple has come to mean something that is easy in a classroom setting in particular, when oftentimes it requires the most work. Simple may look easy but it’s usually very difficult. I don’t want the students to take the easy way out — to just slap something together. On the contrary, what I want them to find or discover is the most elegant solution. The ‘simple’ solution. This takes a lot of searching, digging, thinking, questioning, and long long days. The way this word simple is used today doesn't help. Everyone has heard the phrase: Keep it simple, stupid and it's used in a way that means, "Okay, let's not try anything crazy here, or ruffle any feathers; let's just stick to the basics." This may work well when obeying is a key responsibility of your job, but not when you are paid to think. And designers, good designers, are paid to think.

I love work that is simple. But I hate work that is easy. The advertisement below illustrates this point clearly. It’s simple. But was not an easy thing to pull off.

A bus made out of 50 cars outside the Stockholm airport was erected by Acne Advertising for Swedish airport bus company Flygbussarn to illustrate the point that a bus can transport 50 cars worth of people while producing only 4 cars worth of pollution. It’s a concise presentation of basic math. But producing this piece was definitively not the easy solution. (The easy solution would have been to put up an ordinary billboard that says, “Taking the bus can save 50 cars worth of carbon pollution.’ Or something like that.) We see many such easy creative solutions everyday driving down the road. Heck, we've all been guilty of producing easy work from time to time because it is soooo... well, easy. Easy is often overlooked. But simple can be downright captivating.

The problem in coming up with simple ideas is that because they often require a different point of view or a lot of elbow grease in getting them done. They usually face a lot of resistance. The challenge for creatives that aspire towards simplicity is to figure out a way to get past the obstacles of the status quo and make stuff happen. Simple stuff. Beautiful stuff. Captivating stuff. Anything but easy stuff.

A few images of the busboard:







Below is a video that explains this simple billboard:


Here's Paula Scher on serious vs solemn:


And I would be remiss if I didn't mention John Maeda in an article about Simplicity. (See his book, The Laws of Simplicity, on the mandatory reads list on the right.)

Honestly, it's hard to know for sure if Chipotle has a new logo, as they have always used a few at a time. Going from a bank gothic set design to a Papyrus-like script to an all-cap grunge thing and back again without much reason. They've been all over the place in terms of their identity and packaging - a fragmented approach that stood in contrast to their uber-simple menu. On my last trip (I'm a fan of the burrito at large and Chipotle's in particular), I noticed a new design on a business card and did some searching. Turns out, the new identity is in fact a new identity and was designed by a creative/strategic firm in San Francisco called Sequence. (Their advertising is now being done by Butler, Shine, Stern & Partners. You can get a taste of that work below - though admittedly, taken completely out of context.)

The Old Logos:

The new logo features a revised chipotle pepper, it's inner strokes now more pleasing and purposeful. The previous one did feel a bit clip-art-like. There is also a new set of symbols, one for vegetables, beef, pork and chicken that are drawn in the same manner. I think these icons look great. (I took a business card that included the icons on the back and it's handsome to be sure.) The type is now set in all caps, a pleasing sans that reminds me of a rounded nuetraface - though I'm sure I'm missing the obvious here and await a correction. The combination mark comes in two versions, a horizontal bar version and a round seal version, and combined with their Mexican Grill descriptor. The horizontal version features two rounded rectangles that although I don't love - they also don't get in the way too much. The resutling forms do seem to draw too much attention to themselves, especially where the two shapes meet. I wouldn't mind if a few of the corners were of the regular old 90 degree variety. The colors on all the executions are the same you'd find inside the store previously, maybe with a little tweaking. They feel approrpriate.

The New Logos:

It's a very pleasing and modern design. A vast improvement over the somewhat schizophrenic approach heretofore. So as an identity, I really like. What I'm most worried about is the context. When this design is implemented into the actual retail spaces - how does it work. I believe there is a risk that they might lose a little bit of their personality, if they go too simple with the environmental, menu and packaging. We'll wait and see how that goes, but we do have a little peak into that via a case study on Sequence's site.

The New Look Applied:

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there seems to be (already) some pushback on the change affecting the new menu and the very much loved advertising. The Denver egotist has more on that. (If they are in fact changing their menu - it would be a shame. It's simplicity perfected. Think In-And-Out Burger with a touch of class.) I'm withholding judgment based on the quality of shops involved with this work. Time will tell. The old advertising was simple, bold, funny and without pretense. I hope it remains that way too.

The Advertising Direction?

The Old Advertising:

The Card That Made Me Dig:

The Detroit Lions are it. After going 0-16 last year, the lowliest NFL franchise is looking for any advantage and unveiled not just a new logo - but a comprehensive new look and even used the term 'brand.' Will the new look be enough to get the team on the path for more wins? "We stand firmly committed to improving the team on the field," team president Tom Lewand said. "That success is always the most determinative factor of any NFL brand." But he also went on to say, “It’s about changing a culture within our organization and within our community that says, ‘We are going to do this the right way and we are going to start from the ground floor and we’re going to build a championship football team that year-in and year-out the people of the City of Detroit can be proud of.’ This is our representation of that.” Definitely not the worst rationale I've heard while unveiling a redesign.

The team colors appear to remian the same, featuring 'Honolulu blue' and silver - it's the lion symbol and typography that gets the most attention. The lion silhouette has more modern curves and points along the perimeter and a bit more detail within the shape providing a more muscular form. The new lion now has eyes and teeth and more defined paws, but still is in the familiar upright - ready to pounce - stance. I really like how the redesign eliminated the awkward negative space around the paw and jaw area. The type on the otherhand is a bit much and not nearly refined. (As is often the case.) The most awkward feature is the '“tail-like” tips applied to the letters and numbers, now comprised of a more italicized font. Also the terminals of all the letters are unresolved, but particularly those of the O, N and S. I could live with the L and I. There are just some weird shapes resulting from the attempt to make the negative space between each letter flow in the same manner, and the counter in the O draws too much attention to itself.

Also when locked together within the combination mark, there is a little inconsisitency with the strokes of the lion and the type. I wonder if the lion wouldn't be better off without the black stroke around it - or if the type needs such an element. This could be explored pretty easily.

Overall, it's an improvement. There is still enough heritage left in the design to satisfy long-time fans of the Lions (poor things) while enough contemporary touches to take the team into the future. A future full of wins. Or heck, just one win. My favorite fan comment on the forums that I've read is this beauty from GrPlayer22 via spartantailgate.com: "Not terrible, at least it looks less like an animal cracker..." Well said.

You can read more about the logo and the rest of the rebranding on the official lions site here as well as ESPN. Oh, and just to prove that this design thing isn't easy, here's a gallery of 70-odd fan submissions. (I did include one at the bottom I thought was interesting. Though maybe a bit too Mayan for a Detroit team.)

Out with the Old:

In with the New:

One Fan Submission of Many:

This leaked out on a fan forum last week: