The Anti-Advertising Agency » branding

“Beer here!”: The Poster and the Public Notice in Rural Rwanda

kelli — Wed, 24 Mar 2010 18:34:45 +0000

The journey along Rwanda’s winding mountain roads is a bustling scene rural life, farm work, and commerce dotted with sparse, intermittent signage. In the most densely populated nation in Africa, advertising is thin. There are no shop signs or billboards. The looping eucalyptus and mud brick facades sporadically feature a lone 16″ x 20″ splash of color —very casually placed—which bears the dual message of “this is a shop” and/since “X is available for sale here.”

A beer poster on a shop outside of Kigali

The most prevalent of these signs is the blue-hued Primus beer postings, which frequent the storefronts — usually tacked onto the side, next to the door. Their informal treatment makes their display feel compulsory — approximating how a NYC restaurant might treat a department of health certificate. In the western city, the arrangement of ads is much more careful…and even hierarchical (it wouldn’t be amiss to say that they are arranged by money more than they are arranged by people; i.e. the most visible positioning = the most expensive slot.) In this context, dispassion in arrangement is reserved for the strictly obligatory: the no smoking sign, the choking safety poster, the restroom sign. Refreshingly, all signs seem to get the same treatment in Rwanda.

The Primus beer signs in Rwanda are a strange player here. The sole vestige of western ad aesthetics complete with logotype, spot colors, copyright notice (all alien in this agrarian culture) — they are also utilitarian objects, dutifully pointing to the beer. “The beer is HERE!” This indexical function is immediately at odds with the western advertising’s tendency to disembody the brand from the object. Oftentimes, a NYC billboard will advertise a product that is practically unattainable in terms of the reasonable logistic measures. (Those showy 2003 Target billboards come to mind: the company consumed Times Square with ads before a store was open anywhere near Manhattan…much to popular annoyance.) The Primus ads sit [logically] at the nexus of consumer and beer, brand and product.

How does such a practical arrangement of signage become the exception rather than the rule? Why do these beer signs seem so weird?? For a better answer than can be provided here, I recommend looking at Susan Sontag’s essay, Posters: Advertisement, Art, Political Artifact, Commodity. In this 1970 essay, Sontag examines the assorted postings that cover the western city — distinguishing between the advertisement poster and the public notice. While “posters” historically arose out of the tradition of the public notice, she considers them notably distinct in “presupposing the modern concept of the public – in which members of society are defined as spectators or consumers.” Posters actively compete for the consumer: “the values of the poster are first those of ‘appeal’, and only second of information” while public notices “inform” – ostensibly conveying the straight facts on good authority. The beer posters share qualities of each communication method- straddling Sontag’s definitions (in utilitarian defiance of western ad usage.) Although meant to stimulate commerce (or at least enable it) Rwandan shopkeeps’ deadpan use of the posters to point to the beer makes them function like an informative public notice — the tone of the communication is more akin to signage than appeal. The proximity of the notice to the goods bridges the brand to a physical product. It is a public notice… one that happens to lack the expected civic dimension and instead points to beer.

We drive for miles through farm villages without any signage at all – not even beer posters. At set intervals, a different type of signage emerges as a repeating motif. Sober reminders of the 1994 genocide appear on the side of the road – rendered in uniform block-lettered hand-painted type on standard white posts. Each sign shows a pair of hands in repose with text that bears the general message of “Genocide: Never let it happen again” (as roughly translated by our driver.) Here is the proper, traditional public notice: the sign with a civic message to a country which has literally hit the reset button on what “civic” engagement means.

To say that Rwandans had no other choice is an understatement — the country’s lone museum, the Genocide Museum, chronicles the ruin of a nation in horrifying detail. However, to say that they’ve had no choice also undermines the immense philosophical and political accomplishments of the people. It is impressive — even to the casual observer. One instantly picks up on a sense of “mass cooperation”: drivers yield to cars and pedestrians, strangers engage in polite conversation, Kigali residents excitedly discuss the city’s planned projects as if they were their own. Our driver enthusiastically chats with us about education reform, family planning initiatives, rural housing planning, urban street planning, and the political empowerment of women. There is virtually no crime to speak of. Everyone — right up to the nation’s president— is required to sweep their street once a month. They have more women in their Parliament than Sweden. Fifteen years after hitting “reset”, Rwanda is a nation of people wholly dedicated to civic enrichment — they are busy designing their future through policy.

The genocide street signs stand as a reminder of this sentiment — the genocide was a beginning for unity, rather than an end. Rather than serving as an authoritative mandate from an aloof government, its interpretation emanates from the people. It is the people’s sign, a symbol of unity. This is a public-notice-as-monument — reminding Rwanda’s public of their accomplishments and setting the tone for the new generation. The sign’s deadpan format belies the over-arching convictions of a nation singularly fixated on the future.

A more western ad campaign inside the capital city of Kigali…for cooking oil

Logorama – Ronald Raygun McDonald gets his revenge

Michael Mandiberg — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 10:00:38 +0000

[Oscars 2010 Mejor Cortometraje] – Logorama

This is 16 minutes long animated film of logos and and advertising characters produced by a serious 3D house in France, and nominated for an Oscar, but yet in dire threat of lawsuits for use of corporate logos. At least this is according to the blogs, which, are… well… contradictory. But it is a hell of a great 13 minutes. Great villains, chase scenes, and a surreal vision of contemporary corporate life. It helps if you know Los Angeles.

Great fun. Sad truths. Fantastical visions.

Olympissed

Emily Gallagher — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:00:44 +0000

Olympic ad wrap up: We at the AAA can’t have much of an olympic ad piss party because we were so disgusted by the political and social justice issues surrounding the olympics themselves. We were too busy watching our friends and allies get abused, detained and harassed while most tv viewers drooled over swimmers’ abdominals.

Luckily, I watched the Olympics twice and easily discovered a festering sore– Nike’s campaign, who had the clever idea to protect their investments by utilizing the DRAMA and SUFFERING of losing athletes. Because really, do we identify more with Jackie Joyner Kersee, or Marion Jones? Where was Nike when I was giving mock interviews in rollerblades in my garage at age 11? I definitely sucked at sports– the ultimate underdog! I would have been perfect!

Apparently the campaign wasn’t necessarily meant to be like this. It was a strategy to save face in case any of their endorsed athletes disappointed them. Choosing athletes as product pushers is a risky move… remember reebok’s “Dan and Dave” campaign, where, oops! Dan didn’t qualify for the olympics five weeks before the event. Ouch.

But capitalizing off of anyone’s humiliation or embarassment is bound to bite you in the ass. Nike, in the ad campaign, turned out to be the biggest loser– because they made some really uncute decisions when an anonymous blogger started a rumor:

Liu Xiang, the Chinese track and fielder who did not compete “because of an injury,” was pushed out because Nike didn’t want him to lose, which they felt was inevitable.
Nike suspiciously overreacted, making threats to hunt down the blogger like Osama Bin Laden. Who did they ask to help them? The Chinese Government!

Charlie Brooks, the representative for Nike, assured us that this wasn’t about freedom of speech, but protecting brand image. Oh, okay Charlie! I won’t read into the situation. A manhunt over an internet rumor in an intensely loving and fair country like China is just about branding! That’s fine, then. I thought, for a moment, it might be about valuing money and objects over human beings… which is also why I thought you’d exploit a suffering and embarassed athlete’s misfortune to hock sportswear. And now, Charlie Brooks won’t talk about it anymore.

I think Marina Hyde from the Guardian says it best in her column on the foible:

Don’t Brooks’ employers find that at odds with the kind of inspirational rhetoric that drives their adverts, where mavericks speak truth to power, and the individual is fetishised? No comment. Does Nike have a position on democracy? No comment. Because it feels like just the kind of abstract noun Nike would be drawn to in the cause of selling stuff. No comment.

What will happen next? Advertising screw-ups are almost as breathtaking as the Olympics themselves. Just think of all the drama Aeschylus missed out on, living in the BA (Before Advertising) period!

Obsessive Stephen Colbert Disorder

Anne Elizabeth Moore — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:00:19 +0000

We’re supposed to have viewed Stephen Colbert’s “Dr. Pepper Interview” with Lucas Conley, author of Obsessive Branding Disorder, as a hilarious detournement on the subject of Conley’s book, our nation’s ever-increasing need for brand mentions. But all I got out of the interview—yes, difficult to parse through all the hilarious jokes about brands, ha ha—was that Conley thinks companies should cease striving for lifestyle status and stick with branding only what they are also good at producing. And he gave several examples—by brand name, even without Colbert’s prompting—to back up his theory.

How is a call for proper branding actually going to change the supposed illness from which our nation suffers? If anyone can tell me, great, cause I have no interest in reading the book to find out.

Lucas Conley on the Colbert Report

Steve Lambert — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:05:51 +0000

Lucas Conley discussing branding with Stephen Colbert…

Dothegreenthing.com: Tears Of A Cloud

Steve Lambert — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:00:56 +0000

YouTube – Dothegreenthing.com: Tears Of A Cloud

No related posts.

Orbitz Ad: Distinct Lack of Imagination

Michael Mandiberg — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:00:23 +0000

“Michael Kraus saw the alert about the long taxi line. So he called his brother who lives nearby and got a ride home. Now he owes him a turkey sandwich.”

So advertising is about imagining potential futures. It is about hope, and aspirations and dreams. Is getting a ride home from the airport all those ad people could imagine using their service for? How about finding the subway station so they could take public transport. Now that would be something for the “community.”

I’m not going to link to it

Michael Mandiberg — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 06:30:44 +0000

I’m not going to link to it, because if I do, they win.

There is a mock-scandalous advertisement out there for cologne, or underwear, (or cologne-and-underwear) that has some actress showing some nipple. They submitted it for TV, got rejected, and are now all mock-righteous.

OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO BE REJECTED! That was the whole plan. And then a bunch of bloggers would write about it, and the YouTube video would get millions of free impressions. Cheap advertising.

Which is why I’m not going to link to it.

But I will say that I slowed it down to check, so you didn’t have to, and frankly the web video quality was so crappy that I couldn’t even see the nipple. Maybe on HDTV (but it ain’t ever gonna get on HDTV…) So it is double hype.

N.B. this is the first AAA post tagged “sex.” Steve, how did that happen?

Is the Ad Porn more Ad Creep?

Michael Mandiberg — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 06:22:57 +0000

The interwebs are abuzz with tittering about the video of a pretty young blond woman who ~~sensually~~ sexually licks nearly every phallic object in the hotel room of a chain hotel. You tube has gone so far as to put a warning that the content is “inapropriate for some users” and requires you to sign in to verify your age. (Hence it seems I can’t embed he video. Just go to the link and watch it.)

While I would really prefer to think that there is someone out there with a fetish for licking recently cleaned objects in hotel rooms, and wants to share that with the rest of the world, all signs point towards a marketing stunt. There are several clear logo shots in the opening sequence. The clip is silent save when the woman says “very clean” after a long sensual lick of the toilet bowl. She then shows an open hand to the camera with the url “exstay.com” on it.

Exstay.com redirects to ExtendedStay.com. It seems that Extended Stay has owned Exstay.com since 1996!. There are some reports that for a moment exstay had its own content, but I can’t verify that.

There are going to be Tipper Gores who are going to get all pissy because they are using sex to sell. I guess I’m used to ads using sex to sell. I’m not used to ads pretending to just be straight up amateur fetish porn, only to reveal that they in fact were viral marketing. I can handle the sex. I don’t like being tricked.

And the weird thing is that I can’t get the brand name and logo out of my brain now. I have forgotten most of the licking scenes, but I keep thinking about the hotel name. I hate it when they win. I hate it when they win.

“Montauk Monster” is a “Marketing Monster?”

Michael Mandiberg — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 05:13:15 +0000

Loren Coleman at Cryptomundo has done something inbetween suggest and imply that the “Montauk Monster” is nothing more than a publicity stunt to sell Snapple’s “Venom” energy drink. He writes

The response has been generally good-humored and filled with crypto-intrigue regarding the fact Dr. Pepper/Snapple’s Venom Energy Drink would offer a bounty for the live capture of the Montauk Monster.

He posts a comment on a previous post that goes further

“And for Venom to so quickly jump in with their ad campaign, utilizing loren of all people, and playing this up so, smacks of hype, Madison Avenue, and frankly muddies the waters where genuine cryptozoological interests can be raised.”

Oh, the Madison Avenue Marketing Monster intrigue…