The Most Humble of Hostility, er, Hospitality...

I get really worried when I start to see entertainment forcing its way into places it may not be welcome. In Lonsway's chapter, there is a section that discusses the transformation of hospitals in UEDs, and my immediate reaction to such ideas is visceral and negative. I'm not saying there's not potential in hospitals that focus on 'maintaining health' instead of 'treating illness', and I'm all for positive attitudes, but the examples I've seen just seem far too geared at making money and making the hospital a "destination", which I believe far exceeds its programmatic nature.

I've been to Dartmouth Hitchcock and as far as that goes, I think its fine. A food court in a hospital is wonderful, especially with the reputations that hospital cafeterias so often have. That being said though, I find it hard to believe Sloane and Sloane's notion that it's becoming a popular hang-out spot for teens, even if it is the only fast food joint in the area. Every time I've been there, despite the 'mall architecture', the atmosphere is nothing like a mall due largely in part to the clientel; The fact that half the people are in wheel chairs or give off the distinct impression of illness is a large departure from the clientel typical malls see. I don't think there's anything wrong with these kind of varying demographics, but the distinction should be made between what the hospital food court 'feels like' and the typical kind.

It's places like Celebration Health that start to frighten me. I’m infinitely curious how a place like that deals with the terminally ill patients, especially when they so transparently are trying to run a business (people may say the same for some typical hospitals as well, but generally when you're in a hospital you know the primary goal is to heal and not to sell). Places like Celebration Health already admit to separating the paying health club enthusiast and the frightened hospital patient awaiting treatment. Is it all about image, or do they really care? Are the truly ill tucked away so no one is depressed by them? Are they told until the very end that they’re on the path to recovery and everything will be fine? Are visiting hours at odd times so that weeping family members won't intersect the pompous aristocrat who just came from a Thai Poultice Massage? As Lonsway says, it really seems to be maintaining the status quo. It's too bad, because I agree that “If all 'guests,' patients and spa members alike, were pampered equally – medically, therapeutically, and architecturally – then, perhaps, we could have a more hospitable hospital.” (290) The trick is how to do it.

I have to admit that going into the idea of a UED Hospital, I couldn't help but immediately think of a couple of family guy moments that explore an exaggerated (but who knows? It could happen...) potential of 'entertainment' hospitals. One was Peter doing stand up for terminally ill kids, where the difficulty kept arising that the kids wouldn't be able to relate to stand up humor since it inherently tends to be about trivialities in life, things the terminally ill tend not to fret about as much as the average comedy club enthusiast.


"I was the DMV the other day. Long lines at the DMV, but you’ll find that out when you’re old..er...(awkward pause)”
-Peter Griffin

The other is a doctor having trouble telling his patient that he has AIDS, so he thinks a singing Barbershop quartet will soften the blow. The point, I think, is that some issues need to be dealt with seriously and while in many cases humor makes things easier to deal with (politics from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert), turning something like telling you 'you're going to die' into a laughing matter is very thin ice to tread on. Bill Cosby's done stand up for terminally ill kids and I believe it went over very well. After coming to terms with a condition that you can't do anything about, it might make you feel better if your friends wrote you a song about it, I don't know. I believe it's all possible, but requires some pretty in depth exploration and a very specific mindset of what you're setting out to do.

YOU HAVE AIDS

The Space Between

Just as CityWalk attempts to recreate an urban feel without actually subjecting its dwellers to all the related risks of a metropolis, the ‘hidden persuaders’ in the marketing industry deceitfully expose consumers to various marketing schemes. Embedded within this “suburban strip mall…” (Lonsway), CityWalk attempts to advertise, but specifically entertain through its “…thematic cues – its experiential referents – from the city core” (Lonsway) by producing a themed destination outside the city, while at the same time reenacting it. Today, the addition of entertainment to any event or discipline “fills the eyeballs of millions seeking short-term, user-controlled, instantly-gratifying distractions (Wolf, 16, 30-48). It is quite possible that within these distractions, the notion of the anxious buyer is born. Constantly subject to many different forms of advertisement and marketing pressures, as consumers the quality of a purchase or buying experience remains the most influential aspect to shopping. As overwhelmed consumers continue to establish various interactions with advertisement via highly profiled retail venues, a whole new realm of entertainment is established. The appearance of the so-called ‘honest broker’ attempts to thrive off of a default space set between that of a marketer, and that of the consumer. However, in the midst of “earnestly trying to balance the objective qualities of money and materials against the subjective qualities of pleasure and style” (Zukin), ‘honest brokers’ in themselves seek to provide a new level of entertainment. As an extension from the idea of an ‘honest broker’, popular magazines, newspapers, and journals now hold specific sections designated to providing a consumers guide to the trendiest fashions and the best bargains. In the words of Zukin, “… a consumer guide is not just a guide to goods; it is a guide to the longing for clear, precise, and transparent standards in the public sphere” (Zukin). Even those who claim to provide ‘honest’ insight to the current market, seek to provide a level of entertainment by means of establishing a notion of what remains acceptable within the pubic sphere.

The Next Step

The pervasiveness of thematized environments has reached a dangerous level – a level where we no longer seem to notice (or worse, care) upon entering one. Obviously, varying degrees of departure from “the norm” will elicit differing degrees of wonder, bewilderment, or outright rejection, but we must consider whether the appearance of the manipulated narrative experience is due exclusively to the increased “commercial savvy” of the entertainment industry from the 19th to 20th century. Our culture is fast becoming (broad generalization coming) one of commercial expectation – one of themed one-upping which demands an increasingly themed environment for increasingly themed (branded) people (NikeTown, for the athlete). Whether this is for “maintaining wellness,” as in the themed hospital environment, or for a more discreet branding strategy, one thing seems for certain: now that we’ve come this far, we can’t go back. Such a distillation of the essence of the “here and now” is troubling, especially when we are called to design in it…if the process of design is a kind of innovation grounded in the present, then the idea of designing in a specific theme, utilizing specific tactics for specific ends, is a daunting one. My natural reaction is against this trend, but ultimately the role played by the architect on the world’s stage will more than likely be that of a facilitating agent.

truly living...

What else can be said about the Lifestyle Center? Like it or not, It is the new architectural type of our time. We are forced to witness its growth the very moment we visit the construction site around the Carousel Center. That’s right, even Syracuse is getting its own Lifestyle Center, as a means to revive the once thriving city. We can even see its insertion in Armory and Franklin Square. As architecture students, It is in our face and we are forced to uncover its somewhat vague architectural uniqueness. We can either resist it or embrace its innovation. The Andrew Cohen article is one of the first I have read that paints this New Urbanist phenomenon in a semi-positive light. As a means to revitalize an area we must over look the glamour of its billboard style architecture to highlight the benefits of it. If these Lifestyle Centers are planned correctly they can succeed, as Cohen showed us the through various Lifestyle Centers in California and Ohio. If this is the type of architectural intervention people are interested in, why not give it to them. Architecture is ultimately at the mercy of the publics demand. One problem I do see with it is its demographic bias. As Cohen puts it, the success of this new typology is ultimately determined by its location. Thus, we see these “malls” that only cater to a higher end demographic. I feel this is unfortunate and is masking a greater social issue. I feel these centers would benefit by introducing themselves to a diversity of the target public. Then again, maybe the Lifestyle Center is not for everybody, but the consumer should make that decision. I myself couldn’t imagine living above a Banana Republic or Crate and Barrel into my adulthood but there are others that marvel at its chic approach to urban living. If the target demographic is aging baby bloomers, like Cohen states, I find this type of project to be a hard sell. But if these candy-wrapped examples of architecture can tastefully revitalize the urban landscape I feel we all can benefit from it, even architects.

Too Much?

We as human beings are consumers and so our lifestyle. Developers have recognized it, thought about it, and have developed much so that it has become a way to profit from it; the production of the building typology “Lifestyle Village”. I also want to question if consuming is indeed the main drive behind the human psyche that has made these Lifestyle Villages a success. I feel as though that the Lifestyle Village works its appeal in another way. There are people who like the urban-esque feel of the shops and housing combo that you would find in a city, but feel that living in the city is too fast and or too busy of a lifestyle and more noisy and dangerous of a place. Lifestyle Villages eliminate those negatives. Their new type of a recreated, semi-suburban environments allow their inhabitants to have the best of both worlds; the implied urban environment with convenience, variety, safety, and less noise of suburbia, while also being apart of a new trend. Will this become the new way of living in America and will it catch on so well that it could fade the attraction of our idea of suburbia as well as become its replacement? Or, with the development of the “mega mall” and the UED becoming more populous, will people really want to live in that close of a proximity with more shopping other than that of necessity? In our consumer lifestyle, is there a point of where a limit is reached of a feeling of too much consumption?

the secret to success

In The Soul of the Company Store: Nike Town John Sherry depicts Nike Town as an entertainment destination that has grown into a cultural phenomenon. What makes Nike Town a spectacle in and of itself is its picture perfect integration of shopping and entertainment. NTC has successfully brought these two aspects together. The Nike Corporation has profitably branded its image and its Flagship store, in Chicago, has only highlighted itself as an innovator in the retail market. The author talks of branding as an extension of the company’s image. Whether its Nike, Harley Davidson, or Jeep these companies are popular today because they have loyal customers who support their products and buy into them because they are such status symbols within out society. Nike Town has shown us that branding as an advertising strategy is a profitable tool when it is use correctly. Nike can easily attribute its success to the quality of its products and to its successful advertising strategy. This marketing tool has added to the positive image of the brand and is why people are buying into it. Through innovative advertisement, Nike has branded an image that people want to be associated with. The integration of its products into a museum-like atmosphere is one example of how Nike has branded its image as a forward thinking company. Nike Town has pushed the limits of conventional retail architecture. In doing so they have attained the hard to capture cool factor. At the time of it’s opening, the architectural typology of Nike Town was so unusual for a retail giant. Yet, it is why it has become a successful typology among retailers today. Nike Town has made shopping fun! But it is not simply about selling their products it is more about selling their image. Like the author said himself, when looking at a Nike product in a traditional department store he will forever associate that product with the experience he had at Nike Town. The product he purchased is not what left him with a lasting impression of the brand, it was the experience associated with the product that made him a fan of the brand. Companies are reapplying some of Nike’s techniques and making it their own. Apple is one such company. Apple has recognized that image is ultimately everything and chasing cool is what attributes your success. Apples 5th avenue store in NYC is another example of this phenomenon. Because of visionaries like Nike, retailers are seeking the cool factor through the architecture of their stores. This not only benefits the retailer but is a bonus for the consumer as well.

Where am I?!?!?!

Brandscapes and Brandfests essentially convey the same idea when it comes to the consumer. That idea is the image (or branding) a company produces and how it goes back into the consumer. Both are also extremely influential sorts of advertisements to people of all ages. Younger people might be attracted to some sort of brand because the commercials and other forms of advertisements appeal to their generation. Wherever we go, there is brandscapes, brandfest and etc. and it becomes part of our social norm. This is what brand are out to accomplish, and that is to create a direct and indirect relationship between the brand, item, and most importantly, the consumer.
The reading by Sherry also talked about Niketown in Chicago and this bought back memories on my first visit to Niketown in New York City. The Niketown in NYC has two different functions, and that is selling items and to display various things such as memorabilia from other famous basketball players like Dr. J or even a imprint of Shaquille O’Neill’s hand. It’s as if the store has a double function. I remember that I almost got confused of where I was when i frist entered the Nikestore because I always ended up asking myself "where am I?" This idea also applies to other stores around NYC that contain this “double function” program (Disney Store and F.A.O Swartz). The images and branding of Nike has been all over us and you can’t get away from it. Nike’s image of sports has been subliminally imprinted into our brain. Whenever I think of sports, no other sports brand comes into mind firs than Nike.

Making Connections

The reading "Brandfests: Servicescapes for the Cultivation of Brand Equity” was tailored to the experience of the participant. The article was addressing “brandfests,” or events organized by a specific brand for its loyal customers. These events were analyzed for their success in creating environments that were suitable for not only customer enjoyment, but in creating memories that enhance the bond between customer and product. The same can be said for architecture and how every architect is aiming to create an experience in their design that is memorable for the inhabitant. During the design process the architect is trying to visualize how someone would feel existing in their designed space, how this person would react to one floor pattern versus another. Architecture and branding share a very similar goal; that goal is to provide a memorable experience for the customer. This interaction between consumer and provider is what makes any one person form opinion and enable them to make choice. Why buy one product or enjoy one space more than any other? You prefer one over the other because you had an experience that was not necessarily only memorable, but exciting or informative or unfamiliar. This idea of designing a space that will create an experience for the consumer can be compared to what is going on with DestinyUSA. The project is not only a mall for people to purchase items; it is an experience in sustainable design. Of course the goal of the mall is to make profit, but at the same time they will be educating the public through a memorable architecture all revolving around the health of our environment. This project will further prove how architecture can be used as an informative resource that has the ability to engage with the inhabitant on more than just a physical level.

Branding a Brand new Brand

I simply must begin by seconded Ian’s comments. “Get people hooked on a product and provide them with exit barriers so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter.” (Ian Nicholson) Also, give them the feeling of experiencing risks of all kinds while what is actually happening is simple a façade for something that is safe and entirely under control. “Brandfests" is disgusting yet horribly accurate in most aspects. These readings just seemed like one façade under another. How literal too, as in our constant conversations about big box architecture and designing spaces like those Disney creates; spaces with a stage, backstage, and wings. Well, this staging is absurd.

We begin by discussing the way that a town becomes a brand. I question, if we have gotten to this point, then what isn’t a brand? I understand that a town is advertising itself as a seafood or produce center, but then isn’t every city going to try to brand itself in a similar way. Does the not happen naturally? What’s next, branding a “brand” with a person? After I asked myself that question I found the new Gatorade Tiger “It’s in him. Is it in you?” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WenTKxRxIAk)

It all just seems so fake. Take risks? Are these individuals who attend these brandfests really taking physical risks, in the comfort of their brand new “brand” of Jeep.
It’s never about the brand. It’s about the risk, right? It’s about being a “badass.” It’s about doing something ridiculous and exciting. But after all that “The first principal of perceived risk for the brandfest is that there should be some. The second is that it should not be overwhelming.” (McAlexander 384) So in reality, all these brandfests are about pretending to be taking risks. Ok, so there are also apparent social and financial risks that can happen, but it seems to me that all risks involved are made less risk-like with the help of brand loyalty. The brand is there to reassure. It is there to calm, comfort, and unite! Yet again we find more façades.

McAlexander goes into depth about how certain locations for these brandfests have nothing to do with natural beauty of the place but everything to do with the brand uniting a group of people. To put it plainly, it is rather annoying that a brand must exist to bring people together. But rather than get angry I’ll try to think this through. When making friends, what traits does one look for? Interest in the same music, movies, etc. Essentially one looks for interests in the same products and the same activities.

Is it even possible for us to interact without product involvement? Last week Amelia showed a video of students dancing in a store, trying to have a good time without paying or playing the consumer. And though this act was successful, the store was on the verge of calling security and shutting this all down. So past a few minutes of freedom, is this really free? This is how I feel about branding. You can’t even go see your favorite artist without being slapped in the face by advertising. Just the venue alone exists purely as a means of selling a product while masquerading as a place to bring people together. The Wachovia Center, Izod Center, Campbell’s Field, Coors Field, etc. are all prime examples. Even team names are lost and creativity and regional pride are thrown out the window for branding. The best example I can think of is the New York soccer team which has been renamed “Red Bull New York.” Even though fans typically call them the “Red Bulls”, you can see in the title and on their jersey that they are just the “Red Bull,” exactly like the drink. They are only an Australian produced energy drink. They are no longer a soccer team.

And Ian’s comments about “what social group isn't a granfalloon?” worries me yet again. I often wonder how I can see non-commercialize things still popping up. I often hope for shared identity around something that cannot be bought and sold, because I do agree. When our society is built up on items that can change hands so quickly and easily, why should we expect relationships built on that unsturdy ground to remain strong.

Ultimately, I propose that any individual must be entirely removed from something to not experience the branding of America. That individual must either be removed from it, like the “Allegory of the Cave” or must be oblivious too it. As for those of us, not so fortunate to be oblivious in some way, our only way out, is to work and live in the consumerist society long enough to obtain enough capital to purchase a large farm, live on it, build your home with local materials, blowing your own glass for your windows from nearby sand somehow, drinking water from a stream, feeding on the animals, plants and vegetables on our property and making clothes from the sheep’s wool and cotton that would have to be grown. Oh and to make that work, you made need 20 hands or so, so be sure to have a lot of children. Also, expect to live a shorter life than the rest of society because you can no longer take Tylenol, Advil, Motrin, etc. And after all of that, you can only provide for survival and for your family’s survival, because the minute you sell any of your “products”, you sell out and you have fallen back into the viciousness that is commercialism.

And just for fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oNedC3j0e4&feature=related
Commercialism backfires when Chevy lets anyone create and post a commercial for the new Tahoe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kmyi-aGq6ZE
A Target Commercial that is telling the audience “I don’t know why you say good buy” as if strangely criticizing themselves and saying their products are not a good buy, so why shop there. Oh, I know why, because they have catchy jingles and pretty pictures that are disguising them.

Were did you get THAT from?

As we read these weeks readings, we begin to see and understand how advertising and image are parts to the companies ultimate goal of developing and maintaining a brand. It goes beyond just reaching out to consumers and getting them to buy your product, it is about establishing relationships between the consumer, product and company. Referring back to Paco Underhill’s observations of people shopping and him being about to predicting what kind of deodorant people use is a helpful way for me to understand statements like “the most important message the brandfest can convey about the brand is its fit with owners lifestyles and relevant role identities” (391) and “That a person can develop a relationship with a possession” (388). As much as companies establish specific demographics and target audiences, consumers are identity with certain companies. People like identifying with products. A good example for understanding this is the i-pod. What does it mean to have an i-pod? Why have other company not been able to break apples domination in the music player industry? One reason has to do with the identity having an i-pod give back to the consumer.

There is one caveat, which the reading subtly mentions. For the most part the more exclusive and in demand the more likely it will be able to establish a brand and in turn a consumer identity. Once this appeal is lost and consumer’s identity “unwanted” association (either people or impressions) with the product then it loses its allure.

As a result brandfest, Niketown and Coke factories have all been created in order to maintain this demand and uniqueness. This raises questions of when will the unique become the norm and when this threshold is crossed what will happen?

Missed Opportunities?

This week's readings on brandfests and brandscapes threw into stark contrast for me the utter lack of these experiences I've found myself in. To be frank, the NTC sounds like a excellent tourist attraction and I will almost certainly go there if I find myself in Chicago. The closest I've come to experiencing anything like a brandfest or brandscape actually came to me: a Taylor Guitar traveling road show at my local music store, about five miles away from my house. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this was an event that brought together people with a common interest (playing guitar), yet instead of following their guidelines of setting rules like 'you need to own a Taylor guitar to come', they opened the exclusivity to simply people who play guitar. I believe this to be more effective when you're trying to get people to become interested in a company than limiting to people already interested in a company, and it certainly didn't create "dissonance" that I happen to play a Yamaha.

In addition to all sorts of Taylor-brand prizes and discounts, the 'show' was an intricate demonstration of how Taylor guitars are made and tested (presented by the factory workers) and what sets them apart from the competition. As a selling pitch, it worked extremely well, and the opportunity to play $8000 guitars for even a few minutes sure as heck made me want to 'convert' to Taylor guitar playing, and if I had $8000 to spare, I probably would have bought one of those guitars right on the spot (especially since they usually go for $10,500, wow, I'd be saving $2,500!). Even the 'risk factor' was present, as the showmen gave a few mini guitar lessons to those of us playing, hoping to help us improve our technique in mere minutes, and later jamming with everyone. Like McAlexander and Shouten describe, this gave a personal quality to a large company and gave me fond memories that I now associate with whenever I'm in a guitar store or see someone playing a Taylor.

What's the main reason I went in the first place? It was convenient and fit into my schedule. Like UEC's, I wonder if the future of branding might be less 'destination' and more locale oriented, as if the 'show' was more than five miles away, I probably wouldn't have gone. However, like Disneyland, NTC seems to be such a destination that it's pull will probably remain strong for many years to come, but with 'convenience' taking more and more of a hold on everyone, I wonder how long NTC can truly survive...fifty more years?...twenty?......four?

Hello. My name's Jim and this is my wife Debbie. We met on the Honda Highway of Love.

Costumer Loyalty. Get people hooked (psychologically) on a product and provide them with "exit barriers" so that they can never abandon their product, and watch the bottom line get fatter. Like almost everything in our consumer society, I find "brandfests" (apparently, the most successfull "Brand Equity" ploy conceived of to date) to be both pitiable and laudable. They provide a major social event that has the potential to change people's lives, but that event is in the name of addicting that person to a brand, a corporation, and its attendant image, and those friends and discoveries you've made while taking your Jeep off-road are nothing but devices engineered to keep you coming back to your welcoming local Jeep showroom.

But that's the culture in which we live. It makes sense that humans in a consumerist culture would "find themselves" and forge life-long friendships at a fetishistic gathering meant to further entrench their consumerist way of life. Social networks are fuelled by common experiences that bind certain groups together, but when those experiences are hollow, contrived, produced by ulterior motives, then how strong can that social group really become?

Kurt Vonnegut referred to such groups as "granfalloons" in his novel Cat's Cradle. "If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon" (Vonnegut). A granfalloon is any proud society or group who's existence is based on a shared identity or purpose that is actually meaningless. Vonnegut cites "the Communist party, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the General Electric Company, the International Order of Odd Fellows - and any nation anytime, anywhere." I would argue that social structures created at Jeep Week, Nike Town, or any commercial piece of our culture would fit into this category.

But then, what social group isn't a granfalloon? In our society EVERY piece of shared identity or purpose has been commercialized and effectively evactuated of any real substance. So where does meaning in our interpersonal relationships come from? I don't have the answer, and (I'm pretty sure) Nike doesn't have it either.

the nike museum

In John Sherry’s visit of Nike Town Chicago with the two industrial designers, he is introduced to the concept that the NTC is much more than a simple retail store, but that it is a museum in its own respect. The fact that it is of the same caliber tourist attraction as Chicago’s other main sites, the Museum of Science and Industry and the Art Institute, says a great deal about the impact of this Nike store. The store is able to accomplish much more than any other retailer that sells Nike merchandise; it showcases the pieces in a way that would lead an observer to respect the quality and originality of the good.

More than just showcase the Nike Merchandise, the store succeeds in teaching the average consumer as well. To the athlete, the store highlights the newest and most innovative shoes, apparel and equipment that any serious player should have. In addition the store acting as a teacher, the consumers can become the teachers as well. “Look at all these parents showing their kids around; they’re teaching. Just like a museum” (Sherry 111).

These Nike Stores that exist in various cities other than Chicago work to showcase their products around the world. They exist as a series of “museums,” that not only allow people to observer and admire their products, but also to test the items for themselves.

nudging your way into history

When visiting NikeTown in Boston, just a few steps past the door is all it takes to realize, as Sherry points out, that this is not a store, but a museum. It functioned much like a corporate museum would, trying desperately to legitimize its place in Boston’s prized local sports history, with bronze castings of Marathon runners crossing the finish line and Celtics jerseys lining the wall. This tactic of localizing a global enterprise is fairly clear; it facilitates the consumer-company relationship described by Sherry, and indirectly caters to the lofty goals and aspirations of the athlete. To the aspiring athlete, Nike becomes a tangible conduit through which to access success and notoriety, much like an art museum tries (albeit in a much less overt and overbearing way) to inspire by showing the work of the “best of the best.” For me, where the disconnect between store and museum happens is in the interactions between the consumer and NikeTown. On my visit, I was warned several times by vigilant employees that photography was not permitted inside the store. The proscription of photography seems logical when considering a museum atmosphere, where ambiance and the experience of the museumgoer are held as sacred, not to be disturbed by flash photography. In NikeTown, however, prohibiting photography seems to make less sense. The corporate image of Nike is one which would appear to encourage the association of “hype,” traditionally linked with sports events, to the unveiling and exhibition of new products. Photography is a means of fabricating excitement and interest in a subject that otherwise may not exist. This, in conjunction with the eager crowd surging into NikeTown to see the latest in athletic wear, is capable of giving the NikeTown Museum all the publicity it needs.