dudu: janis joplin, poison. Now in Advertising
neo: doors, romeo. Now in Automobiles
red: allan parsons project, weed. Now in : s/w
Subject: nice poster on the roof
this is a poster on the roof of the smoking room of infosys bangalore.. thats dosent concern the 2 any wayz......
way to go guyzz............
fcuk infosys. this is the smoking room of everest advertising, mumbai.
u think IT guys can think like this :-)
red - no offence bcoz i haven't considered u as one IT guy.
well........absolutely not ...... i don't consider myself as a part of any group let alone IT... but there indeed is a lot of crap sitting in there as creative czars in advertising as if they were chosen by god almighty......
i am starting to think that there is a big ethical question in advertising in pushing stuff people don't need. You probably have heard about Naomi Klien http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Logo
I fully agree with u both u guys. According to the practical skeptic like me i feel that a person views himself or herself through others' perceptions in society and in turn he or she gains identity and is the result of the concept in which we learn to see ourselves as others do . ( no offense dude)
This begins at an early age when we are young (gcda days) and continues throughout the entirety of a person's life.
One might never stop modifying their self unless all social interactions are ceased . They might then put forward an influential summary of their perspective.
so for me IT is only learning some abrevations and jargons
and Branding is selling the art of learning how to sell stuff not required to layman.
Great Neo........I bet middle east has turned you into a philosopher ....that is Sartre and Existentialism at its best ...........see the excerpts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism
Sartre believed that beings possess the power to look at themselves and at another or an object, which is to use one's mind to look at the person in static. This concept of "looking" and the power to look, is referred to as The Gaze. This destroys an object's subjectivity. The thing becomes an "in itself" or an object. Sartre stated that this form of consciousness was used quite often in inter-personal relationships. People place meaning onto what other people think of them rather than what they think of themselves. This process of radically re-aligning this meaning from The Gaze onto one's own being is what leads to periods of so-called "existential angst".
Being for others
Sartre believed that people who cannot embrace their freedom seek to be "looked at," that is, to be made an object of another's subjectivity. This creates a clash of freedoms whereby person A's being (or sense of identity) is controlled by what person B's thoughts about him are.
i don't agree with red neither agree with naomi klein and the no logo.
it is just another publicity stunt by a journalist.
what has she become after that. she becomes a brand. don't forget that.
forget ad agencies and corporates. we are just pure mortals.
brands go as dated as olympics began and even cleopatra, shakespeare. they were all brands of their own age and era.
on the ethical question of pushing stuff people don't need. if not today it will be required tomorrow. some markets may be immature to accept a product or an offering. period.
and to sign off - consumer is not a moron, he is your wife.
and if advertising people are chosen by god almighty, yes definitely yes. we all are. even IT guys ;-)
this is a debate that will never lead to a consensus ......coz is it very tied to each indvidulals politics, economics and a host of other things... and the debate is not just about advertising alone.......however it is important to see the other side rather being cocooned ....
cleopatra, shakespeare..... they all have different identities.. looking them as a brand is only one way .....tomorrow there might be another construct like a "brand" and you could ascribe them to that too. like the liberation theologists who say that Jesus Christ is the first Marxist which is very true coz he fought for the downtrodden. it is all different points of view as they say
In this context suggest you to watch this interesting documentary when you get time .pretty long one ..but a must watch i would say
< http://www.thecorporation.com/ > THE CORPORATION explores the nature and spectacular rise of the dominant institution of our time. Footage from pop culture, advertising, TV news, and corporate propaganda, illuminates the corporation's grip on our lives. Taking its legal status as a "person" to its logical conclusion, the film puts the corporation on the psychiatrist's couch to ask "What kind of person is it?" Provoking, witty, sweepingly informative, The Corporation includes forty interviews with corporate insiders and critics - including Milton Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Michael Moore - plus true confessions, case studies and strategies for change.
Winner of 24 INTERNATIONAL AWARDS, 10 of them AUDIENCE CHOICE AWARDS including the AUDIENCE AWARD for DOCUMENTARY in WORLD CINEMA at the 2004 SUNDANCE FILM FESTIVAL.
when i took that picture and attached it on to my mail and made up my tale
i wasnt quite in my senses but now i feel i am good in BRANDING as well as IT.(INFOSYS)
in the context of people becoming brands, brand is what masses know. they can easily relate to it. have they ever read shakespeare - NO.
for eg let's take david beckham - the masses know he is a big brand. he is the one face of english football. his wife is victoris of spice girls. his sons name is romeo and something.
he is now even the face of american soccer. and that too for an obscene amount transfer. when did america started playing soccer? puzzles me.
masses are interested in page 3. accept it. and it is aspirational too. will they ever get to see them in real life. they might not. but they will know everything from his birth. this is not meant for soccer fans alone or beckham fans. everyone knows. and why everyone knows.
bcoz he is a brand. he is a good marketing guy. he has stupendopus spin doctors. he is a great PR guy. but he is not the greatest talented english footballer who was born on that part of the world. i wud say he is one of the least talented minus the dead ball spot kicks.
branding is done in a different way here in the middle east... no one looks for beckhan and his
' victoria 's secret ' here. no one cares abt the money and not necessarily has his "american dream".
for the cause of Arab resistance to the zionist program in palestine branding zionism as colonialism, thereby denying recognition of any Jewish national needs and entitlement to palestine as the Land of Israel has became a constitutive myth of the Arab discourse against the Jews.
The answer is that branding has become one of the world's most potent defamatory code-words. Hence those who seek fatally to stigmatize creed / products / humans grasp it with alacrity as a weapon in the struggle to end the existence of such.
precisely your question dudu " what is the connection between america and soccer?" who lost out ? soccer hungry fans in europe? soccer itself? england? imagine baseball which started when cricket was already there for decades and rugby ( american football ) when soccer existed years before........ helooooo now i hear some branding happening.....
they even have a world series baseball competition every year but the only teams playing are from the usa only.
now my conclusion
brandingl serves as a litmus test for distinguishing people - those who are hostile to every fuking thing other than their own perception and those who are conscientious critics of the policies and actions of everything other thing in this universe.
Would like to take on one line from Dudu .... Masses are interested in page 3
that sort of sums up the entire argument that marketers have for the current state of affairs or degeneration if i could say so...we follow where the market is...if for that Times of India has to show nude women on its sports page so be it ( I am not being a moralist here ) ..we are being led by the least common factor in all aspects of our existence. but classical marketing theory also can create a market when there is none. how did Coke become such a behemoth when for all of our existence we lived without something like that. Its like a . chicken or egg situation ..market or brands..... leading to a gradual dilution of all values and making us pathetically homogenous... kellogs for breakfast, colorplus for attire, gucci for leather and mcdonalds for dinner ..... think capitalism is creating the communist utopia.
a friend form uttranchal was telling me a while back that Women sing the latest Hindi tunes in the sangeet ceremony that they have at night while till a year back it used to be traditional songs.. a generation later those songs would never be there ..power of the Bollywood brand ???? killing all our indigenous music... I wouldn't be surprised if our kids consider putto and kadala as an exotic dish while they would be feed on cereals, bacon and chips..
there are examples of active intervention too where consumers are taught. how did Kerala come to have a better film culture than the rest of India except Bengal.. the film clubs, chitralekha studio and a host of filmmakers painstakingly exposed us to and idiom different than the mainstream. why even our commercial cinema is refreshingly different in plot and execution than the rest - reason why priyadarshan keep remaking them in other languages.
Masses can be taught