Help Empower a New Generation of Sustainable Designers

SUPER BOWL! Thanks to Pepsi's decision to spend their Super Bowl ad dollars on social change grants instead of crappy TV spots, Re-nourish is now deep in the game for a $50,000 Refresh Everything grant! But we really, really need your help for this. I know you're constantly bombarded by requests for help, for money, for time, but I am shamelessly asking for your vote. It takes just a few seconds, and it could change everything for us.

If you're a graphic designer, Re-nourish is a resource built just for you to sift through the greenwash to get to the real information about sustainable design. We believe that empowering designers to integrate sustainable design thinking into their work is the key to keeping our industry competitive in a rapidly changing economy.

If you're not a graphic designer, Re-nourish is still working on your behalf by reaching out to the creators of all the printed stuff you interact with every day, helping them make it better, safer, and more responsible.

The bulk of the money will go toward overhauling and expanding Re-nourish.com—making it more user-friendly, improving the interactive tools, adding new tools and educational resources, and so on. A good chunk will also go toward launching a couple of wider initiatives to make the supply chain all of us designers depend on more sustainable. So far this has all been a labor of love, but to really reach the growing number of working designers out there, we need you.

You can read all about our plans, and then you can vote for us—once a day, every day, through the end of February if you're so inclined.

All we gotta do is make it to the top 10 by the end of the month—and we're already well within range! So, please, take just a couple of seconds if you can spare it, and don't hesitate to leave any questions in the comments below.

Using Design Elements to Support Meaning

Nice example of meaning manifested through a carefully chosen design element:



The postcard above accompanied a magazine insert encouraging breast self-examinations. I'll bet it would have been even more effective had the emboss been of an actual breast, requiring the reader to actually practice a sort of self-exam.



[via directdaily]

The Fun Theory

Making an action more fun makes people more likely to do it. We seem to forget this too often.

Fun with Film Strips: A Guide to TV Advertising

I recently discovered a treasure trove of old filmstrips archived over at AV Geeks (no doubt!). I remember being fascinated by this one when seeing it in elementary school:



I wonder how many grade schools still teach kids about media literacy and critical analysis. I also distinctly remember a mathematics filmstrip featuring Donald Duck that taught principles of geometry using a pool table.

And then there's this 1971 gem about the emotional buying habits of consumers (who is that encyclopedia salesman, anyway?):



Be sure to peruse the AV Geeks online archives; it's a celluloid goldmine!

Is It Worth Paying Extra for Professional Expertise?

Listen, I'm a big fan of DIY. I'm also a fan of bootstrapping, and self-education. But it's so important to know your limitations - to know when you just don't know enough - and to pay someone who does. When you hire a pro, you get someone with both expertise and experience, which translates into better work overall. More importantly, perhaps, it results in fewer screw-ups on your project and actually less money invested over the long term, even if the pro costs more (good clean-ups get mighty pricey, especially because folks are often in a hurry to get the clean-up done quick).

Case in point

This is just a simple paint job on a simple delivery van:



One just needs the basic info, a decent painter, and that's that: what could possibly go wrong? Of course, someone with little design experience might not realize that painting an object with moveable parts might result in unaccounted-for scenarios. They may fail to ask the burning question: That looks great on the side of your van, but what happens when you open the door?



So yeah, just think about that the next time you're trying to do something you've never done before. Moral of the post (a.k.a. DIY design tip): account for multiple user scenarios or cough up for an expert who knows what to look for!


[Images from Jalopnik, originally posted to FailBlog]

Happy Fourth! Ink Initiative Poster Sale for A Great Cause

The Ink Initiative produces high-end illustrated posters that are screen printed by hand, and donates all profits to charity (this year's nonprofit organization is Philabundance). Talk about a worthy business model. Anyway, they're having a 2-for-1 sale while supplies last.



In the meantime, drive safe, enjoy your BBQ, and don't lose any fingers!

Four Quick Email Marketing Tips

I don't usually do the standard top five tip list rigmarole, but I get a lot of email newsletters, and I'm noticing a few not-so-positive trends lately. So in the interest of easing the in-box crunch, you might want to think about the following issues before sending out that next email blast.

1. Don't send your email newsletter on Tuesday

There's always a lot of talk about the best day to send your e-newsletter, and apparently every single email marketer recommends Tuesday. I get maybe two dozen e-newsletters on Tuesday, and I can't handle it anymore. I know why this is, though: everyone's cranky on Monday because it's Monday, on Wednesday everyone's in a bad mood because it's hump day, on Thursday everyone's scrambling to get work done before the week ends, and on Friday everyone's checked out (either mentally or physically). So, Tuesday it is.

But maybe, just maybe, you should consider the possibility that picking a less-than-ideal day of the week is still better than getting lost among two dozen other e-newsletters.

2. Don't subscribe me without explicit permission. Ever.

I don't care if you think I'd be interested in your products. I don't care if we hang out on the same forum. I don't care if you paid good money for my name on a list. Subscribe me to your email newsletter without asking first, and you're getting instantly marked as junk.

I play by the three strikes rule (and I consider that generous): the first newsletter I simply unsubscribe from, then send to my junk mail folder. The second time, I reply directly with a complaint, and go through the whole thing again. If I get a third e-newsletter with no acknowledgment of my complaint, the sender gets reported to SpamCop. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one doing this.

3. Make sure I can unsubscribe easily

I know, I know. This tip ends up on every "Top 5 Ways to Improve Your Email Marketing" list on the internet, but hear me out. Probably 5% of the e-newsletters I get either have no unsubscribe link at all, another 5% have an unsubscribe link that doesn't work, and maybe 20% require a whole song and dance to get off the damn list. Keep it simple: put the link at the top and bottom of your email (text smaller than 8 points is unacceptable), make sure it works (you know, actually test it), and don't require the recipient to enter their name, address, password, and favorite breakfast cereal to unsubscribe. I promise you, the animosity you save will far outweigh the number of actual unsubscribes you get.

4. Double-check your subject line

In the last two weeks, I've had three separate email newsletters or announcements land in my in-box with either "DRAFT - please review: [subject here]," or "TEST." Accidents happen, sure, but this kind of accident seems to be happening more and more. I'm really not finicky, but it just looks lazy when an oversight like this happens. The subject line is a crucial component of your newsletter, and if you're not looking at it, you're making a big mistake. Not only is your e-newsletter more likely to end up in the spam folder, you end up looking, well, less than attentive.


Now, these tips aren't going to change your life, double your click-through rate, or land you a date to the prom. But they will help keep from mildly annoying your recipients. And in the world of marketing, that's really half the battle.

The Concept: Advice to Be Taken As Directed

A concept is generally considered to be the most important element of any commercial design project; designers love to throw the word around, but many are hard-pressed to actually define it. Copywriters rely on concepts as much as designers (and are often the ones responsible for developing them at the outset of a project), but are often just as much at a loss for words when asked for a definition (sad state of affairs, no?). And clients generally just look at us all blankly when we bring it up. With all this vaguery and confusion it's no wonder that solid concepts are about as rare as an honest politician these days.

A definition that actually means something

Essentially, a concept is the intellectual construct that binds the visual and verbal elements within any given design piece. Another attempt at definition, no less esoteric: a concept is the organized structuring of relevant themes that guides the visual and verbal components in a physical piece. Does that help?

"If you can't explain
it simply, you don't understand it well enough."

—Albert Einstein

If the intellectual construct is shaky - that is, if the pieces of the puzzle don't fit logically together in some way, the concept is weak and the viewer is left either confused, or simply uninterested. It's easy to create those kinds of concepts, and writers and designers churn them out every day (often encouraged by marketers, receptionists, and the boss' spouse).

But when a concept logically links the various intellectual and physical components of a design together, and manages to add a cognitive twist that stimulates the brain in some way (forcing the old a-ha, or double-take), we can reach conceptual nirvana. Or at least, we're likely to give the design more of our attention.

An example, please

Of course, this is all a lot of theoretical hooey, and like a lot of other theoretical intangibles, concepts are often subject to the "I'll know it when I see it" rule of understanding. So let's try it: I stumbled across a brilliantly concise design concept while perusing the AIGA Design Archives this weekend. This is a promotional mailer (a postcard, ostensibly, or brochure), designed in 1962, for a photography company. Ready? It's really quite subtle (or, as I like to call it, elegant):



The concept: the photography company as remedy for what ails you. This is largely a copy concept, in that the kicker - the element that provides the a-ha moment - is the tagline "To be taken as directed." The visual cues - the medicine bottle and prescription label - support this copy, but it's the copy that tells us everything we need to know about the company via the metaphor of prescriptive medicine.

This particular concept relies on a double meaning: the tagline uses a familiar phrase in medicine, to be taken as directed, and places it within a photography context, thereby adding another layer of meaning: the company's work is custom-made to order, giving the client exactly what it wants. If you've ever tried to purchase custom photography, the ability to handle art direction is fundamental; this ad speaks perfectly to its audience, using a concept that delivers the point clearly, and amusingly.

How clients can help feed concepts

Designers and copywriters don't just magically pull a solid concept out of thin air (well, the good ones can in a real pinch and for a grossly inflated sum of money). In order to produce solid concepts, creatives need information on which to build their conceptual sandcastles. This means spending time with clients before any creative work actually starts. Any number of things can trigger a good concept:

• Client personality or brand persona
• Client goals, vision, and values
  
• Audience demographics, needs, aspirations, or values
• The nature, production, and delivery of product or service offerings
• Cultural contexts and current events
• Psychedelic drugs (okay, probably not)

Designers and writers new to the trade often make the mistake of accepting what the client tells them in the first conversation, and then hitting the sketchbook. But a good creative has to ask a lot of questions first - they need to populate their mental page with lots of dots. Only when they have enough information can they create a conceptual form that makes sense; connecting the dots, as it were.

So, if you're a designer or writer: don't be afraid to ask questions. Ask strange questions. Take a ton of notes. If you're a client, of course, be willing to answer questions. Be willing to share details, tell stories, and generally spew as much information into your creative's lap as you can muster. In the end, clients and creatives share the same goal: to produce stronger work. And without a good concept, the work just won't work as hard.

The Hypocrisy of Prop 8

Some very nicely designed posters from Mark Luethi, for the Stop Prop 8 campaign, that cut right to the heart of this issue:







Each poster can be downloaded and distributed by clicking on the images above (or check out the whole flickr stream). I strongly encourage you to do so, and to attend any of the many rallies coming up.

Copywriting in Action: Inspiration from the Financial Crisis

Has the financial crisis officially jumped the shark when references to it start creeping into everyday advertising? Or is it just smart marketing to incorporate a ripped-from-the-headlines approach to one's copy? The real answer is, I suspect, that companies feel they can no longer pretend business is just business as usual. But to acknowledge the current economic turmoil or not is not even the big question of the day. The big question is: how do we acknowledge it? This week, I've had two very different approaches arrive in my inbox.

The Sincere and Concerned Approach

King Arthur Flour knows its brand. The company has been around since 1790, and has always stayed true to its core product. As the oldest flour company selling such a basic food staple, King Arthur has closely aligned itself with the notions of family values, nourishment, and responsibility. These ideals are reflected consistently throughout the company's marketing copy, whether online or off (for example, on the side of every bag of flour is printed the company's money-back guarantee—written as a letter directly from the company's president).

The latest newsletter (shown above—click the image to read the whole thing) is no exception. King Arthur has stuck with its brand identity and framed the financial crisis according to how it actually impacts its customers.

"OK, let's face it: the world is in financial turmoil...To many, it means figuring out new ways to put food on the table. And that's where we can help. King Arthur has been putting bread on American tables since 1790. Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War II, and countless financial downturns, King Arthur has been a steady, solid presence.

King Arthur isn't glitzy and glamorous, not the brand du jour. We're just there. Always. To help you sustain your family with good, homemade meals..."

The copy is conversational, intimate almost. It addresses the reader as a confidant. King Arthur can get away with this because of the brand it's already built that reinforces this approach. More than that, it can get away with it because all the claims are true.

The truly remarkable piece of this e-newsletter is not, however, the style or tone of the writing. The real kicker is that the e-newsletter isn't selling a single thing. In fact, it's doing the opposite—it contains a free recipe for coffee cake, and links to free services provided by the company (free baking classes, a free baking hotline, and the company's blog). This reinforces the email's message: King Arthur is a trusted friend here to help you in a time of need. Yes, we're just talking about flour. But the company has managed to remain human despite such long-running success. Perhaps that's why it's had such long-running success.

The Exploit It For All It's Worth Approach

And in the other corner, we've got an email I received the day before King Arthur sent me their offer of help. It's worth noting to start that this email was an unsolicited spam ad for an e-course on marketing. I'll never understand marketers who insist on using spam to try and sell their junk. The email amounts to a press release from two "intellectual property experts" who share a blog and are now trying to cash in on the current financial crisis.

"The same economic meltdown that is wiping out stock portfolios like a Category 5 hurricane is going to open opportunities for savvy bloggers, both entrepreneurial and corporate, to generate revenue that may have been elusive during better times. Two innovation entrepreneurs have developed a way for bloggers to learn how to thrive even when the market dives.

'These eCourses will help bloggers identify the numerous opportunities around them and embark upon a path of making money from those opportunities,' says Monroe. '...We put these eCourses together to help bloggers develop those skills and game plans so they can sail in smooth waters when many others are still in that Category 5 hurricane.'"

Let's start with the tone of the copy, which uses a hurricane metaphor (and not just any hurricane, either, but a category five hurricane) to raise alarm bells. That kind of fear-mongering is just flat-out exploitative, particularly given the significance of what's at stake for the reader. The rhyming phrases are a nice touch copy-wise ("learn how to thrive even when the market dives"), but entirely inappropriate for the subject matter. Adding levity to a crisis is one thing, but this is just belittling.

Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by this kind of copy, given the subject matter. The pitch, after all, is written to appeal to the reader's profit motive, pure and simple. But isn't unchecked profit motive what got us into this mess in the first place? Don't get me wrong: selling a course to teach bloggers how to capitalize on the economic crisis isn't unethical in and of itself. These folks are consultants (like me, in a sense), and selling ideas is a perfectly legitimate way to make a living. But how you sell matters as much as what you sell.

These are two dramatically different approaches to acknowledging the financial crisis. Both are legitimate in their own right. The question becomes: what kind of message do you want to send to your audience? Or better still: what kind of message does your audience really want to hear?

Copywriting Case Study: How to Insult Your Audience

In a clever move to win back the support of consumers, the Corn Refiners Association decided the best way to do so would be to condescend to and insult the very people it's trying to win back.



It seems the industry trade group takes issue with those of us who give a crap about the crap they try to force down our throats. Let's just break down the horrible line of thinking that led to these ads, shall we?

Step One: Identify the Problem

Like any good advocacy group would, the Corn Refiners Association recognized that their single most profitable product—high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)—is earning itself a bad name among doctors, parents, and a whole lot of other folks. First came the whispers of "why is it in everything?" including what should be unsweet food items like turkey stuffing, salad dressing and hot dogs. Then came the study that linked high fructose corn syrup to diabetes in children, which is quickly becoming an epidemic (probably because it's in, well, everything).

This is the first thing they did right, from a marketing perspective (I won't get into the first rule of ethical marketing: don't push dangerous products).

Step Two: Join the Conversation

In many cases, companies decide to just stand pat when the rumors start whirling (this approach was particularly favored in the days before the internet gave consumers so much control over brand reputation). But as the rumors about HFCS became the subject of scientific study, the CRA apparently felt it had to step in. They must have figured, "Hey, let's set the record straight!"

What they failed to admit to themselves was that the record was not exactly in their favor.

Step Three: Frame Your Message

Both of the ads the group launched hinge on the concept that facts trump "what they say" any day of the week. Not a bad approach, if you actually have facts to back up your argument. But the ads fail to deliver on this promise, opting instead to bolster several fallacies with facts that are rather inconsequential.

Claim: HFCS is made from corn.
Truth: Yup. (Of course, I don't really want corn in my toothpaste.)

Claim: HFCS has the same calories as sugar.
Truth: Basically, yup.

Claim: HFCS is fine in moderation.
Truth: Possibly true but misleading. Americans' consumption of HFCS has increased 250% over the last 15 years (source), because it's in damn near everything; CRA member companies shipped 23,503,847,000 pounds of HFCS in 2005 alone (source). So when they tell us to consume it in moderation, it's a little bit like waiving a vial of crack in front of a junkie and then telling him to go home. HFCS has also been linked, as mentioned, to diabetes because it messes with the way the body produces natural regulators.

Claim: HFCS doesn't have any artificial ingredients.
Truth: Not exactly true, and definitely misleading. There are synthetic ingredients used in the processing of HFCS (corn starch hydrolysate and glucose isomerase enzyme preparation, to be exact), but the molecular structure of these substances are altered during manufacturing. Furthermore, the FDA itself (notoriously loose when it comes to limiting Big Business claims) does not allow companies to call products containing HFCS "natural" (source).

So if you're going to frame your message around facts, you better have good ones to support it.

Step Four: Imply Your Audience is Stupid to be so Easily Swayed By Empty Words, then ask them to believe yours

This is where the copywriting really falls apart. Setting aside the giant conceptual mistake of fact vs. fiction, it is generally a bad idea to portray your audience as being either a dumb sheep or a passive-aggressive, judgmental bitchface. Do the writers even realize that the white mother in the ad above represents the very people they are trying to persuade? She's expressing what the public is thinking—why on earth make her look like such a snot while doing it? Making your audience feel bad about themselves—or worse, self-defensive—is a terrible way to get them to do what you want.

The Lesson: Consider the person receiving your message and be nice to them

Mending a broken relationship with your customer base is no easy task. I can't say I envy the marketing minds behind these ads, given the uphill battle they've been tasked to fight. I'm not even sure I know what approach would work for them at this point. I do know, though, that winning over a naysayer requires a delicate touch. Making your audience look like a douchebag, then asking them to support you? Not so delicate.

You Gotta be Careful When Making Green Marketing Claims

When TerraChoice's Six Sins of Greenwashing report was released last fall, it brought with it whispers of green fatigue, and raised the specter of Big Business Bullsh--. Could it be that corporate co-opting of sustainability had led to a market full of misleading claims and outright lies? Go figure. But as the public's sustainability discussion moves along, governments are getting involved in an attempt to curb the marketplace. So if you're one of the many companies offering up green claims, it's in your best interest to start paying attention to what you can and can't (or should and shouldn't) say.



The Six Sins of Greenwashing report analyzed over a thousand green claims made by businesses, and found that only one was legitimately honest. The rest committed one or more of the following sins:

1. The sin of hidden trade-offs
   Focusing on one environmental benefit while ignoring other essential issues.
   
2. The sin of no proof
   Lack of third-party auditing to back up any claims.
   
3. The sin of vagueness
   Using words and claims with broad or multiple meanings, resulting in an essentially meaningless claim.
   
4. The sin of irrelevance
   Making a green claim that is already inherent to the product or service being marketed, as though there's something special about this one.
   
5. The sin of fibbing
   Outright lying.
   
6. The sin of the lesser of two evils
   Making claims within a product category that is inherently environmentally damaging (i.e. no matter what green claims are made, the product is by definition bad for the environment).
   

The PDF report (also available here) offers recommendations for both marketers and consumers. The ultimate goal is to prevent consumers from becoming so jaded by misleading claims that they give up on green or sustainable businesses altogether.

In addition to TerraChoice's recommendations, both the U.S. and Canada have issued their own guidelines. Our neighbors to the north go beyond the legal requirements for Canadian labeling compliance, offering fairly in-depth recommendations for businesses who make particular environmental claims. The PDF report is a useful tool no matter what country your business operates in.

Our own government also offers guidelines for environmental claims in advertising. Regulated by the FTC, the bulk of these guidelines are legally binding, although I haven't done the legwork to determine just how frequently and under what circumstances these laws are enforced (keeping up with the marketplace's now ubiquitous green claims would certainly pose a challenge for any organization). An even more detailed guide is available on their site, but be aware that the FTC is in the process of updating these in response to the rise of the green marketplace.

Addressing Your Own Green Claims

Though boning up on the federal regulations is a must for any business flirting with green claims, it's not just the government's ire you need to worry about. Speaking the truth is essential to ensure credibility among your own customers. So, once you understand what you can and can't say, you ought to take a look at what you already are saying. At the very least, you need to ask yourself:

• Are my claims specific?
• Are my claims clear and understandable?
• Are my claims verifiable by a reputable third party?
• Do my claims accurately represent the purchasing issues a customer might face when buying my product?
• Do my claims provide enough context for the customer to make an informed decision?

And remember, if you're not sure you can back up what you claim, don't bother saying it. For more information about gauging just how green a business is, see The Case-by-Case for Sustainability.

The Girl Effect

Drunk Driving Campaign

Nice environmental installation from Jupiter Drawing Room for Arrive Alive South Africa. These appeared in nightclub restroom stalls:



[Via Osocio]

Flags of the World: What They Really Stand For

Here's a striking ad campaign for Grande Reportagem making the rounds. It features lush yet no-nonsense representations of various country flags, with a small map legend inset in each. Reading the copy reveals a much larger truth than the viewer was likely prepared for. It's everything I love in (information) design: subtle, commanding, and quietly thought-provoking.



The campaign comes from Draft FCB Lisbon.

"Making Good Use of Bad Rubbish"

Here's a great little example of creative thinking:



[via via com it]

Marketing Requires Research

Creative Director: Let's go with a cinema theme for the new Hennessey ads.
Copywriter: Sure, we can make the ad look like a movie poster...
Creative Director: What'll you call it?
Copywriter: How about "Lost Weekend"...it has a classy, luxurious devil-may-care feel...
Creative Director: Go with it.



Result: An ad for cognac referencing a movie about alcoholism. Oops!

[Via adfreak]

It Shouldn't Take Revenue-Sharing to Do a Good Job

A recent BusinessWeek article tackles the growing trend among advertising agencies of trading their standard fees for a stake in their client's business. The idea is that the ad agency will have a greater incentive to produce effective work if they get a chunk of the profits. While proving ROI has always been a sore spot for marketers, this method isn't exactly the best way to solve the problem of ad efficacy.

While advertising tends to be a different ballgame than other forms of marketing (corporate ID systems, for example, or direct mail), the idea that it makes sense for ad agencies to go into business with their clients is ridiculous. Pick a business, and do it well.

More to the point, though, I have to take issue with the article's underlying premise:

"Marketers have little reason to care about the performance of a campaign after the client doles out their fee...[Anomaly's] unconventional approach of treating marketing campaigns more like intellectual property to be licensed than commodities to be sold could disrupt the long-held model of a nearly $150 billion industry."

I think BusinessWeek is conflating two different issues. Designers and writers have long fought for our rights to our own work—copyright protects the author of any work until said author chooses to sell or give away some or all of those rights. The public—and apparently BusinessWeek—has a poor understanding of copyright and IP; clients often think they're buying ownership of a given creative work rather than limited usage rights. Unless the contract stipulates otherwise, they're not.

To claim that this process of licensing individual rights to a work—which is actually quite standard in our industry—is somehow the same as trading those rights for a royalty is to misrepresent the business relationship. You can trade rights for a fee, or you can trade them for a percentage of future profits—either way, though, the individual rights remain unchanged.

Someone needs to point out to Anomaly's partner, Carl Johnson, how bad it sounds when he says ""When we own the IP or we share in the revenue, you can bet we're going to work all day, every day." So what exactly were you doing for your clients before this arrangement? It's no wonder Bill Hicks called us marketers "the ruiner of all things good." The nature of our business is communicative. If we're not listening to the response to what we put out there to make sure we've gotten the right message across (in other words: making sure we get results), then we're simply not doing our job.

Imagine a Billboard Cemetary

Imagine a city with no outdoor advertising: the billboards become naked skeletons, bare taxicabs and buses drive past leaving you with no final message, there are no posters, or flashing neon, or cardboard cutouts begging from you and teasing you and screaming for your wallet/mind/soul. When you close your eyes and imagine this new city, does it look something like this?











Welcome to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where the mayor has outlawed all outdoor signage. He's been called a fascist for doing so, hailed as a visionary, and generally gotten a whole lot of publicity. But will it work? Will stripping the city bare really mark a "victory of the public interest over private, of order over disorder, aesthetics over ugliness, of cleanliness over trash," as writer Roberto Pompeu de Toledo described the new law?

I can think of three possible arguments against the ban:

1. It restricts free speech.
2. It ignores the possibility that advertising might actually add to the public good.
3. It will put an industry out of work and affect the livelihood of thousands of small businesses.
   

Of course, the first argument goes without saying. But the government knows this already: one city councilman admitted that "some people are going to have to pay a price" for what he described as a "complete change of culture."

And what about the second argument? Is it possible that advertising isn't all evil? (Bill Hicks is rolling over in his grave as I type.) Gustavo Piqueira is a designer who "worries that much of the 'vernacular' lettering and signage from small businesses—'an important part of the city's history and culture'—will be lost." I think this is a valid point. Hand painted signs, storefronts and artisan vendor advertising all add to a visual language that is inevitably unique to the community that produces it. Can it be ugly? Sure. Should it be banned? Not so sure.

And, of course, there is the final question of money; only time will tell if the law will put people out of work and negatively impact Sau Paulo's economy. I suspect it will cause more problems than it solves, although the government does expect to slowly allow a more regulated advertising industry back on the streets.

But more importantly, it raises some interesting questions about what is and what isn't culturally worthwhile. Will stripping away ads while leaving the physical framework really look better? And will it impact consumer habits? I have to admit that I'm excited that a city as large as Sau Paulo has actually taken such a dramatic step to find out, regardless of whether or not it's the right step. Some questions you just can't answer without actually acting first.

Dinosaur Marketing Gets a Makeover

Billboard advertisers have long struggled to overcome the limitations of their medium. They've tried to get past the one-directional messaging option afforded them—flashing a giant, flat message at random passersby—by adding cute little bells and whistles that include:

• Changing LED-lit messages
• 3-D figures that extend past the standard confines of the flat plane
• The ability to text your own message to the billboard
• The ability to play a video game on the billboard
• And other clever tactics to grab the viewer's attention for just a split second (sorry)

Now, however, marketers are moving beyond eye-catching content into eye-catching media, quite literally. The latest billboard technology actually catches viewers' eye movements, and tracks and stores the information. This reminds me of the recent Mini Cooper campaign that uses an RFID chip to identify passersby and customize messages just for them.

I don't know about you, but I find this trend disturbing. It seems like social networking gone haywire; advertisers assume that because technology allows us to spy on each other (sorry, connect with one another), we should. I've always enjoyed living in the city because of the anonymity: you can walk down the street and blend in with the crowds around you.

This is a great example of unintended consequences: is it worth alienating a portion of your audience by forcing them into a particular relationship with you? Is this any different than relying on risqué content that might offend? I'm not sure, but the former seems much, much worse to me.

Old Navy and Others Co-Opt the Indie Voice

Admit it: what did you really think when you watched that Nike commercial so many years ago featuring the Beatles' Revolution? Was there a pang in your heart at the idea that one of the most fiercely independent and revolutionary bands of the modern era had sold out?

While the concept of integrating rock music—a universally "outsider" area of our culture—into mainstream commercials was completely new at the time, none of us bat an eye anymore when the likes of The Who start shilling for Hummer. We can thank the megaconglomerates, of course, who own the TV stations and the recording companies and who often even have a stake in the products themselves. Bands' entire careers are now made by their big debut on the latest iPod commercial. So why do I find myself wretching violently at the latest wave of corporate co-opting of the indie voice?

I'm referring, of course, to the bold-faced misrepresentations found in commercials and ads from Virgin Mobile, Old Navy and others. These ads inevitably feature a narrative voice of some sort exhorting the joys of the indie scene. They seem to whisper in your ear it's okay, you can buy our products because we get you. We've got cred because we know what "indie" means. And, as usual, the irony of a corporate chain store touting indie street culture falls on deaf ears.

• See how Old Navy pretends they're capable of producing a "cult classic."
  
• Virgin Mobile sympathizes with neighbors faced "newcomers who want to change Bed-Stuy into some sort of yuppie strip mall."

The most maddening thing about these ads is not that companies are taking this approach, but that they are so brazen about pretending they are something other than what they are. It's simply dishonest.