Gremlins

While the town of Chickasaw may seemingly be public, it is in fact private, despite “its design signifying a traditional public space” (Lonsway). It seems as though the town of Chickasaw struggles to keep itself independent, due to the many spatial connections which service a town, whether it attempts to remain off the grid or not. Although these spatial conflicts seem outrageous, as architects a provocative issue comes to fruition when considering public vs. private, and how to design and develop a project which may interact with its public surroundings, but must remain private, thus autonomous. It is within these spatial connections that one may make a link to the architectural discipline and the idea of ‘brand gremlins’, which are “the people and processes responsible for seemingly small but repetitive mishaps…that progressively undermine a brand” (Farquhar). Along with the notion of the ‘brand gremlin’ comes the challenge of identifying a strategy to turn what is wrong with a particular product, use its assents, and develop it into something which benefits the brand. These so called ‘brand gremlins’ hold a significant relationship to architecture as a discipline, despite the fact that they seemingly hold no spatial concept.

In relation to ‘brand gremlins’, an architect/developer may go into a project with a specific idea about how their project could react with the landscape, thus developing a formal strategy based off of the existing site. After further land testing, the developer reveals that the ground contains some contaminates from future use, thus some land must be manipulated. It is then that the architect must use the assets of the land, despite that it has changed from the original concept, to still design and build a project which remains seamless to its surroundings, and “…turn gremlins into advocates for the brand” (Farquhar).

A Public Affair?

Politics and court precedents always set for me a certain wonder for what will arise as a result of them. I wonder how the founding fathers of America would feel about how the second amendment extends to assault rifles when their goals at the time were simply to make up for the lack of a standing army. In the private rights and free speech debate in such places as malls and Disney, there’s obviously a lot of ambiguity for how laws put in place before electricity was really harnessed end up being interpreted in today’s day and age. Beyond even ideas like Disney policemen giving false impressions or protesting fur in front of Macy’s, I start to consider what implications ‘private domain’ may begin to have with the future of the internet.

The internet is inherently extremely ‘public’. It gives off all of the implications of a something that is public for personal gain (be it marketing or showing off a toy soldier collection) and therefore by the Chickasaw precedent of so many years ago which stated “The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.” (326 U.S. 501, 1947: 505, quoted in Lonsway 354)

So when a website gives off all the ‘identity’ signals of something public and is distinguished only by the fact that it is privately owned, can they get mad (as in ‘suing’ mad) when someone posts something insulting to them on their website? What about when someone is in a public forum on privately record company’s website and starts promoting their own show or band? Today, that’s usually called ‘spamming’, and like the ‘flyers in the mall’, one’s immediate reaction might be ‘well no, because that website belongs to that record company’.

But imagine if you will, a world many years from now where nearly everything you ‘need’ can be found with nothing more than the internet. Then, like the mall, that age old argument can be made again that if people are doing everything they need to online and 98% of all musicians start using one website that just starts to hold a sweeping monopoly for them (kind of like Google in the search engine business), then can’t one say that their entire target audience exists on that website and therefore they should be able to advertise to fulfill their ‘free press’, ‘free speech’ rights? Of course this kind of speculative debate could go on for many thousands of words, and is potentially useless until it starts to show itself more as a problem, but there’s some food for thought. Where, in a future internet-dominated world, is it okay to shamelessly advertise for free?

BE SURE TO GO SEE ‘MR. NICE GUY’ BY ALEX COULOMBE. AN ORIGINAL, FULL LENGTH COMEDY ON COMMERCIALISM AND ITS EXCESSES, THIS FRIDAY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY APRIL 18 19 AND 20 IN HERGENHAN AUDITORIUM IN NEWHOUSE III! VISIT http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=24159768352&ref=mf FOR MORE INFORMATION AND PROMOTIONAL VIDEOS, ALL OF WHICH SHOULD BE POSTED BY MONDAY!

The ART of Social Condensing

Lifestyle centers such as the Easton Town Center are interesting artifacts, in regards to their programmatic layout and location. Programmatically, centers such as these lend themselves to the lifestyle found in areas of high population density and more urban environments. Combining housing and grocery with big name retail and restaurant dinning provides a very stable shopping demographic and the perfect solution to creating the opportunity for customers to revisit the location. What I find interesting is that locations such as these have been successful in the suburban context. The density of the surrounding area has not forced this type of lifestyle on the occupants, such as living complexes in Manhattan or Hong Kong have, but they have served as a social condenser at both the internal residential scale and the outward communal town scale. They have also been beneficial for the town due to the fact that they drastically increase the value of surround property and keep the taxes for the aid of their own community. Lakewood Town Center is a perfect example of the positive effects that can come from development projects such as these and should be used as models for smaller cites of a similar problem.
It is also interesting to consider the point at which retail development can become detrimental to a society. Projects like Lakewood and Easton have proven to work at a fairly large scale, but mega malls such as Destiny seem to take away from the sense of community. Although the tax income of the community may increase with sales, there is appoint where retail of such large scale can hurt the small business.

How much is "value" worth?

It’s seems that value no longer has the same definition. Dictionary.com defines value first as “relative worth, merit, or importance,” the primary example being the value of a college education. Then the second definition is “monetary or material worth, as in commerce or trade.” The point that I’m trying to make is that value is no longer defined in the first example. It is about the cheapest. When Zukin writes about the honest brokers she says that “they place themselves on our side in the endless struggle for value” (Zukin 170) They may be attempting to do so, but true value never actually comes into play. It seems that true value only comes into play when the individual has the time or the money to make the distinction. As I said, people claim to want to know the value of goods but they don’t actually want to know it. They want what is quick, easy, and cheap. Dr. Phil, the popular talk show host, satisfies his audience because he is the quick, easy, and free answer to real therapy. But he’s not an actual doctor. Yes, of course, he is real. But how does his false advertising of therapy benefit the public who views his show. Dr. Phil.

Reality is unimportant to Americans so long as what they get is cheap and easy. When I worked for Best Buy, 90% of the people who came in were looking for the cheapest of whatever they needed. Even when it was a leisure item they typically spent the big bucks on the fancy TV because it has Sony or Pioneer slapped on it. But then, even when you tell them they are only going to get the “store quality” or “full quality” of the product if they buy all the appropriate cables and services, they don’t listen. Does anyone sign up for that? Of course not. They have the name brand they want, and they got it quick and easy and, yes it looks better than that old 20-inch Curtis Mathis, but it is not being used efficiently to it highest potential. Yet, the individual spent a good amount of money on a it and if they had only spent a little bit more, they would have obtained a huge increase in quality.
Zukin claims that the Honest Brokers “represent our deepest longing for value” (Zukin 173) But again, value is too often tossed around.

The problem is that this concept of value only worked when it was new. But when using this honest broker technique, deception crops up because people want to advertise according to this standard of honest brokers but in reality they are simply lying. In the new play, “Mr. Nice Guy” by Alex Coulombe, you find a pre-film commercial at the beginning of the play, and on the bottom of the screen there are little asterisks* citing that these quotes are not actual quotes or all the little catches to what’s being advertised. This may just be a play but it touches on reality.

Because so many companies have used the honest approach while really scamming the public, the consumer no longer has time for being convinced about the value. Now, most people just figure they will get screwed either way so why not go with the cheaper thing, so they don’t regret it as much. They don’t want to be scammed. In current advertising, companies have gone so far that they are calling each other out on this “fine print.” Companies are reading the fine print that the consumer may miss and bringing it to your attention to make their own product seem like the best option while also making their competition seem worse. But again, even those advertiser are hiding truths about their products.

The community mall article by Cohen and Borko is just reinforcing what was just stated. Americans want what is cheap, easy and quick and the lifestyle village provides that. It creates a microcosm of survival. Because the rise of suburbia has forced us into a situation in which you have to drive to Target and then find K-Mart and then go to Blockbuster and then drive all the way back home, Americans are wasting too much time, too much money for gas, and it was not as quick and easy as doing the same thing within walking distance, which is what the lifestyle village provides. Society has gotten so large and so spread out that the only way to deal with this many people is to begin breaking it up into villages. Villages have always existed, but because societies have become so dense in the past 100 years, we now are realizing that happiness lies in us reverting back to the idea of the village, where everything is close, small, convenient. The only problem is that economically we still live in a global market. Also “the narrative control of an individual’s experience is arguably central to commercial success.” (Lonsway 255) So companies don’t want to lose their hold on their consumers. But if we could look inward and have these villages exist as local, self-sufficient entities it would be a step in the right direction.

I'm getting it because he told me to ...

In Sharon Zurkin's article she goes into depth about consumerism and how it has changed our lifestyle(s). Consumer guides are something that has came up that changes and influences the way we think about certain products. We rely on these people or so called "honest brokers" to tell us about products, items, and basically everything else you can think of. What they think and recommend to us is what we will most likely get next time we need a product. When they say that a Nissan 350Z is best coupe outside under $30K, we will definitely consider the Nissan 350Z because we trust the consumer guides advice. However, one question always comes up when it comes to consumer goods and that is, "How trustworthy are they?"
Recently in the gaming industry there was a scandal about consumer guides and electronic gaming companies. It seemed that gaming companies have paid off these "honest brokers" that write reviews about these games in order to enhance the games image. Game companies that produce games such as "Kane & Lynch:Dead Men" were rumored to have paid off the people who write reviews and coaxed them to write a good review about the game. Doing this would convince the consumer to buy that game next time they are at a Best Buy or a Game Stop. However, the reviews about that certain game didn't match what the consumer's thought about it as the majority of people who own the game basically said it "sucked."

Consumer Dependency

In this consumption based society, consumers try and take advantage of every resource available to them. In the grocery stores and shopping malls, consumers are faced with never ending advertisements and endorsements for products that they should be buying instead of others. “Today, we depend on the advice of honest brokers who teach us how to choose the best automobiles, microwave ovens, and take-out pizzas” (Zukin 172). Consumers are influenced more and more by these endorsements by magazines, noted newspapers and various books, that they have completely put aside their own opinions on products for those of complete strangers.

The writers for The New York Times, Car and Driver, PC World and Good Housekeeping have taken over for our parents in pointing us in the right direction on how we should live our lives. They will tell us which products are the cheapest, which are the most effective at doing their job and even which products are the healthiest for us. Even though these honest brokers are speaking to a general audience have no actual idea of what we really do need, they speak to us as if they will always know what’s best for each of us. By creating a dependency on the brokers, we as consumers struggle to purchase something even as insignificant as a book or a bag of pretzels without knowing which brand is above the rest.

The Price for Pretty

Where to start…. If you think for a second it is easy to connect the dots and see the linear evolution from the Paris Arcades to Lifestyle Villages. What isn’t easy is to see where this evolution is heading. In order to see into the future a few critical questions must be asked first. Brian Lonsway addresses them but does not, nor should he have to, answer them. Where does this entertainment invasion stop and/or how much will it sacrifice program. In these designed hospitals, for example, a couple of problems have already arisen: including “problems of separately managing two clienteles” (Lonsway 288), and spending moneys on sand castles versus mental equipment. In other words, “wellness over illness” (Lonsway 295).

As architects, yes it might not be a surprise but should be a concern. And yes designing specifically for the blind, deaf and disable is essential for creating better spaces and yes shaking up the “idea” of a typology is not wrong, but where does it stop. Where does function get sacrificed for form? I think it is important for us architects to recognize this critical line and realize the consequences for crossing it.

On another equally important point of which I mentioned last week in class, is if everything is unique, what is it then unique too? What would it be like if there were ten Guggenheim's on 5^th Avenue? Move a little south on 5^th Avenue and you could see the result when the Seagram Building’s set back idea is duplicated and placed next to each other.

If I had to sum up my argument if would be that while conventional thinking is not the law, it is important to understand why it is the convention. Making things to look cool and unique might work at first but without substance it has no way of making it last. Wow I sound like my professor…interesting.

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.