Slayterbox1748

 Chances are that you, like most Americans, enjoy watching funny videos on the internet. Maybe you’re one of the 100,000,000 or so that have watched a baby panda sneezing on Youtube or one of the 350,000,000 who laughed as Charlie bit his older brother’s finger. They’re quick, enjoyable, and, most importantly, easily accessible. In short, everything that an advertiser dreams of for their product, so it was only a matter of time that comedians started producing funny web videos that promote products.

Jason Bateman and Will Arnett recently started the new video ad business Dumbdumb, a site that aims to please both their fans and advertisers by producing ”digital content matching not only a brand’s personality and marketing objectives but Arnett and Bateman’s well-known comedic tone as well.” Their first project was a series called “Always Open,” featuring the comedian David Koechner interviewing celebrities like Jason Bateman, Sarah Silverman, and Amy Poeller. How does this promote anything? Well, the show took place in a Denny’s and aimed to extend Denny’s campaign of “America’s diner is always open.”

Another popular video is “Prom Date,” in which Jason Bateman plays the father of a teenage girl that Will Arnet, her high school teacher, is taking to the prom. In the midst of the shenanigans, Orbitz Gum comes to the rescue, making the parents more easy-going and the teacher less of a slime ball. I have to say that it’s not as funny as the duo’s past material, especially when I was expecting material to match the hilarious TV show Arrested Development, of which Bateman and Arnett both starred. While “Always Open” does a good job of putting Denny’s in the background, “Prom Date” makes the mistake of centering around Orbitz Gum, making it feel a bit forced.

Of course, product placement is nothing new. One of the first examples was way back in the 1950s when African Queen took money to feature Gordon’s Gin in the film. Later on, Reese’s Pieces paid to be in E.T., gaining incredible popularity because of it. TV shows have become notorious for product placement. For instance, Seinfeld often featured brands seamlessly; the episode with Junior Mints simply becomes “The Junior Mints episode.” More recently, shows have become more blatant with product placement, like in 30 Rock when Liz Lemon, after plugging Verizon Wireless, turns to the camera and asks, “Can we have our money now?”

Now, media is becoming increasingly web-based, and it would only follow that someone would find a way to sell funny internet videos. Jason Bateman and Will Arnett are joining a flock of comedians who get brand backing for their comedic wit (Zach Galifianakis does a spot for a deodorant on his hit web series “Between Two Ferns). The only question is whether this will make comics lose their credibility or if audiences will accept it and funny videos will become inundated with blatant product placements. (Perhaps, next time we watch Charlie bite his brother’s finger, we will hear an off-camera voice shout, “Put a Band-Aid TM on that!”) Personally, I think it’s smart to be funny for money, as long as the money doesn’t mess with the funny.

When you think about a “re-brand” you probably think about a company over-hauling its entire image. But here’s a story that proves that re-branding doesn’t have to be revolutionary to be effective. Also, the product doesn’t have to be some big name; in fact, it can be as innocuous as a banana. Chiquita Bananas, to be specific. Check it out.

The point of the re-brand is to make bananas seem more fun, encouraging people to collect the stickers. In my opinion, it’s a great move on Chiquita’s part, as the new stickers should prove to be eye-catching in the fruit aisle.What also strikes me about the Chiquita re-brand is how obvious it is. There are already stickers on fruit, so why not make them fun? Re-brands always work the best when it fits naturally. Case in point: Coca-Cola and Pepsi. Pepsi tries so hard to be hip, while Coke never needed to.

If there’s one thing you can take away from this, it’s that everything can be made to be cool. With the only exceptions of: mom jeans, the catch phrase “neato,” and Pepsi. So, go out and “Bananafy yourself.” You know you want to.

In a world cluttered with information and images, minimalist designs stand out. One recent logo change represents the trend towards this cleaner look. Starbucks’s 2011 logo change features a close up of their famous mermaid, the newest design in a history of logos that favor simplifying. The 1971 design (”Starbucks: Coffee, Tea, Spices”) radically differs from the 2011 logo (no words needed at all!).

Antrepo, a website devoted to design, took other recognizable brands and stripped them to their essentials, begging the question: “How much is necessary to still communicate the meaning of a brand?”

Of course, minimalist designs can sometimes not provide enough information. Can you guess what this product, which I personally think resembles “Eve” from Pixar’s Wall-E, is used for?

If you guessed toilet, and I doubt you did, you guessed correctly! It’s the Cell Tankless Toilet.

So, what I’ve gathered from these examples is that if you have a product that’s already recognizable, then simplifying it will make it pop. But if your product is not widely known, then a minimalist design could prove to be confusing and hurt you in the long run. Either way, next time you have a cup of coffee, check out Starbuck’s new cleaner logo, and have a sip of the future.

With so much money in marketing, how could it be possible that 50 percent of U.S. brands are fumbling at targeting one of the fastest growing demographics? Who would ignore 50.5 million Americans? This elusive demographic is more obvious than you might think, especially if you paid attention to the 2010 U.S. Census. Yes, the Hispanic population is becoming ever more present in America, and companies are starting to take notice.

One of the most clear examples of the power of the Latin market is the success of Mexico’s national soccer team, and we’re not talking about on the field; we mean as a brand! The team is becoming a top sports brand, and, as Michael Hitchcock of Playbook Management International comments, “They are selling out stadiums, selling jerseys, selling soda, selling beers — anywhere you look at it they are a money-making machine because the fans are so passionate.” American brands such as such as Bud Light, Coca Cola, and Home Depot are pushing their association with the Mexican team (even when many of these companies are also supporting the American team). Just as SUM’s VP of global sponsorship David Wright points out, “The growth (of the team as a brand) will mirror something you see in this country; the demographic shift and the evolution and growth of the Hispanic market place.”

One of PGM Artists’ clients, The Brand Gallery, based in Greenwich, CT, understands this trend very well.  Having launched Mexico City based TDN (Televisa Networks’ Soccer Channel in the Summer of ’08), they have postioned the company well to capture the attention of this fast trending sector of Advertising and Marketing.  Stay tuned!

While never having considered myself a ‘pretentious’ person (for all those confused by this word because of its overuse, here’s a reminder: Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed), it is believed by some that all five of Terrence Malick’s (might help to know that he graduated with a major in philosophy) films are for the pretentious of mind. Having seen one of his previous films (all of which are period pieces and filmed with back dialogue), The Thin Red Line, I can say that with The Tree of Life I believe he has delivered another in depth look at an issue most people seem to avoid. While it might seem ambitious of Malick to take on the issues of human existence, religion, and evolution in a 138 minute film, he is able to sum up one person’s perspective flawlessly (as there are billions of people in this world, having an opinion differing from someone else’s is bound to happen, right?).

I love and found myself admiring the structure of The Tree of Life. Malick, while having made a film full of captivating and breath-taking imagery, has simultaneously made a film exploring the beauty of everyday life. And he couldn’t have spelled out the simple plot of the creation of life better than with images, the Truth Claim (no, this is not made up, it is the idea that film accurately depicts reality). While some points seemed to touch upon the surreal, the film grounded in reality. The 45 minute montage of the creation of the earth and humans up to the 1950’s (a time use for its remaining purity and still rich with energy and excitement for being alive), was not fabricated. Life was created, and if you take a minute to step back and look at it, like it seems Malick has, it is just as beautiful and unbelievable as those images lead on.

The plot and in depth themes of the movie has been making some viewers almost skeptical to the reason’s for the film. Is it true that Malick simply made this film to be able to visualize his own opinion. Wether that was his intention or it was to be able to communicate opinions with his audiences, it makes this film a unique one. It allows the thoughts and visions of the creation and development of the world to be closely examined from a single mind’s perspective.

While the plot may have been confusing to some, and seemed almost implied for others, this  difference was most likely intentional. This allows for more people who might have differing attitudes towards the dimensionality of the characters. If it had been spelled out one way versus another, it would be pointed for a select few. While there was almost no dialogue, and  barely more faint whispers (which one could assume to be prayers), the characters were allowed to be just a regular family but still have a very strong emotional connection. This was shown in the rather extraordinary acting by not very well known actors (sans Brad Pitt of course, we already know he can act). While their development was not plastered on a billboard like probably preferred by most of the viewers, there was a significant emotion to it all, an almost ‘having been there’ feeling; nostalgia.

Repetition was another major aspect found in this film that helped to create this ‘too real’ effect. Repetition is found in almost everything in life, and within this film, the repetition of shapes, colours (blue for instance), and childhood props was enough to draw even the smallest of elements back into the story as a whole. All of these elements created Malick’s ‘dream-like’ effect and his idea that “nostalgia is a powerful feeling, it can drown out anything”. If the audience was paying close enough attention to the small things and picked up on them, then the plot of the movie was there, for all to see. Does this seem like a simple plot complicated by use of imagery in place of dialogue? Yes, it might appear that way to some but to me it seemed to be a lot like real life; if you look closely there is poetry in the mundane and everyday circumstances that we all find ourselves.