Recently in History Category

I've commented on this before, but the Rebranding Bandwagon just refuses to slow its roll. It seems like every day more and more major consumer product brands are slapping on a happy face to combat the mid-depression blues.

Past approaches of "efficient" and "effective" have gone by the wayside, replaced instead with marketing strategies that are "soft," "playful," and "cheery" - the attempt being, of course, to lighten the doom and gloom the American consumer feels every time they run out of toothpaste or have to feed the meter (or the kid).

It's actually getting pretty ridiculous. Pepsi cans will now be smiling, grinning, smirking, or giving stock advice depending on what kind you get. And I've heard the new 2009 Harley Davidson Softail is coming in "Recession Yellow" and sporting a horn that plays "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

I realize that brands, even established ones, need an occasional "refresh" to stand out on ever more crowded supermarket shelves. I also understand that the current economic situation is a living reality that brands feel like they have to respond to. Still the recent upsurge of rebranding efforts is starting to seem, in look and feel, depressingly trendy to me.

Image courtesy of Gaetan Lee.

I heard Richard Florida on the radio this morning. You may remember him as the author of The Rise of the Creative Class, which traced "the fundamental theme that runs through a host of seemingly unrelated changes in American society: the growing role of creativity in our economy."

Anyway, he was talking about America's post-crash geography and mentioned that, while recessions have been traditionally bad for the working class, the creative class is still doing alright. When I checked the stats to which he was referring, I found that "alright" really means "less bad."

Turns out, as in the past, this recession is extra hard on the working class. Jobs in production are down 12.9% since last year, and jobs in "construction & extraction" are down 14.2%. By comparison, jobs in arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media, as well as jobs in architecture and engineering, are down a mere 5.4%. So, "down," but not "as down."

Where is growth happening? In the sectors Florida calls "eds and meds," that is, higher education and healthcare. For example, jobs in "healthcare support" have increased by 10.4% year over year.

My question is: Does this mean that marketing, communication, design work related to healthcare is also or will be on the rise? What are you finding?

Image Courtesy of Buster McLeod.

The concepts of time-shifting and place-shifting (originally called "space" shifting) come from the realm of consumer electronics. The classic time-shifting device is TiVo, which allows you to "shift" the time of your favorite TV programs to a time of your choosing.

On place-shifting front, Sony, HAVA, and Sling Media, among others, have devices which allow you to change the "place" where you consume media by sending TV shows to your PC, for example. You could also think of the iPod/iPhone as doing the same thing with your music and videos. Indeed, one denizen of the interweb, Nari Kannan, postulates that the ability to shift time and/or place is an essential element of technical innovation.

Kannan goes on to say, "Placeshifting in the larger context with the widespread adoption of the Internet enabled Outsourcing and Offshoring! Work is not tethered to one location anymore." We find the same idea expressed thusly in this article on the future of electronic design, "The Internet dissolves international boundaries, creating a time- and place-shifting global village of design and engineering."

At this stage of the game, any work whose end-product is an electronic file (which could be a text document or a feature film) requires solely that collaborators be connected electronically, not that they be spatially proximate to one another. In fact, the only complication introduced by the fact that the end-product takes a more material form, a chair, for example, is that the collaborators must each on their end be connected to some physical transport system such as that run by FedEx or UPS.

Given the boundary-less world of cyber-enabled work, to what extent are we still bound by geography when it comes to landing gigs or hiring people, especially since anyone can post a resume or portfolio online or advertise a job opening and it can be found by anyone with access to the web from anywhere on Earth?

When it comes to actually getting hired or hiring I believe that the only thing making physical presence in a particular geographic location necessary is trust (or, more accurately, the lack thereof). As atavastic or primitive as it may be, the most basic form of trust still rests in seeing someone with our own eyes, shaking their hand, and sizing them up by talking to them, asking them questions, and gauging their responses.

Of course, people nowadays will readily work with someone they have never physically met. Why? Because trust functions as a currency that can be passed from one individual to another through an introduction, a recommendation, or a referral. The same technology that enables time- or place-shifted collaboration has encouraged the growth of globe-spanning trust networks, which may in the end turn out to be its most revolutionary effect.

People can make a career out of being trusted (Brogan calls these folk "trust agents"). My question to you is: Do you see us here at Aquent as trust agents? If so, how may we assist you?

Image Courtesy of Kevin Krejci.

This post was written by Aquent's Alex "Get Your Damn Re-branding Off of Me" Weaver. This is a picture of him.

Maybe it's the sinking feeling that what we've been doing with our lives up to this point is precisely what got us into this recessed moment in history. Or maybe it's the inverse; maybe it's the feeling that since there's nowhere to go now but up, we want to put our best foot forward by turning over a brand new leaf. Whichever the case may be, one thing has become clear: today's recession is driving the brands of yesterday to rebrand for tomorrow.

America itself, of course, got the ball rolling with its inspirational new look (love it or hate it, this ain't George Washington's Union anymore). Pepsi kept it going with their daring new (burping?) logo. And then Kanye West had to just plain take it over the top with his outlandish new name ("That's Martin Louis the King, Jr, to you"), which, I understand, is some sort of dual homage to the civil rights movement and a new line of Louis Vuitton shoes (read: sellout), though it's probably just his way of increasing the number of things he can rhyme with himself.

The question is, is all this name-changing and logo-altering a good idea? Isn't it possible that, in these turbulent times, the American consumer will end up seeking solace in the comforting familiarity of things that never seem to change? I've said it before (apropos of Joaquin Phoenix' recent experiments in rebranding): if it ain't broken, don't fix it. But what do I know? I'm just a card-carrying member of Generation Y with one hand on my wallet and the other one waving a peace sign.

This post was written by Aquent's Alex "Dr. Love" Weaver. This is a picture of him.

With Valentine's Day hard upon us, I couldn't help but sit back and reflect on all the great matches that Aquent has made since its inception back in 1986. I'm not one to boast, but it seems that a broad swath of companies are just now trying to bust the marketing moves we made popular over the years.

Now I don't want to pat Aquent's collective back here, but if I did, I would probably talk about how Match.com and their "Love. Guaranteed." slogan is a total rip-off of the "Work. Guaranteed." ad campaign we were on about back in '89.

Then I would point a finger at Axe's "Dark Temptation" commercial and remind our loyal readers of the "Temp Temptation" fragrance we released back in 1996 to commemorate our 150,000th placement (though instead of Mr. Chocolate, our poster boy looked like this).

Finally, I would really, really have to thank Joaquin Phoenix's latest personal branding exploit for shedding light on what we've known all along: when you're the bomb at what you do, you don't need to do it any differently.

I would, but I won't.

AdAge published a story yesterday on what is supposedly Arnell's design strategy brief for the new Pepsi logo. As that article states, it is unclear whether is this a viral hoax or what but, if you haven't read through it, it's actually pretty trippy (check it here pepsi-arnell021109.pdf).

The strategy described is called "Breathtaking," and the document explains that "BREATHTAKING is a strategy based on the evolution of 5000+ years of shared ideas in design philosophy creating an authentic Constitution of Design." This statement is accompanied by an amazing chart that documents the evolution of human thought from the mystical numerology of the Hindus circa 3000 BC to Pepsi circa 2009 CE.

I have a Phd in German Studies so my tolerance for pretentiousness and intellectual bravura is pretty high, which is why I'm totally captivated by this, particularly the lengthy section describing how Pepsi's iconic geometry depends on ever-evolving perimeter oscillations. I can only imagine that future generations will find in this document a post-modern Rosetta Stone and view it as the hieratic key to the mysteries of contemporary culture.

For you brand strategist and ad types out there, is this sort of document the typical fruit of your labors or just a particularly grandiose and amazingly awesome example thereof?

Image Courtesy of brownpau.

This post was written by Aquent's Alex Weaver. This is a picture of him.

Over the past couple weeks, the only thing that's been jammed down my throat more than the relentlessly ridiculous Snuggie ("The Blanket with Sleeves!") are the ever-demanding "25 Random Things" lists popping up all over Facebook (where, in case you didn't know, Aquent too has a page).

I've been wearing my bathrobe backwards for years now, so I've got the Snuggie thing on lock. What I haven't done is put together a "25 Random Things" list, so I thought I would do one for Aquent. Then it struck me that we've been around for 20 odd years and tens of thousands of people have participated in the Aquent story along the way. Thus, I decided to start with a mere "15 Random Things About Aquent" and invite y'all to add to it and pass it along. Here goes....

1. Aquent" is pronounced "ay-kwent."

2. Our company band, TNEUQA played at the House of Blues in Cambridge, MA.

3. Former Aquent talent Jim Infantino sang the national anthem to open a Red Sox game.

4. Al Gore spoke at Aquent's Cre8 conference in 2007.

5. Our bi-annual Talent parties are generally "themed," with recent themes including: Mustache Party, Aquent Prom, and Taco Truck Night.

6. Longtime Aquent employee Kim Schaefer was a featured voice in the original Grand Theft Auto. Ben Weaver, brother of Aquent employee Alex Weaver, was the voice of the pizza delivery guy in the "Liberty City" edition.

7. Our CMO was Aquent's first employee and our CFO was Aquent's first temp.

8. The Los Angeles Business Journal and the Boston Globe recently recognized our LA and Boston offices as "Best Places to Work."

9. For you parents out there, Aquent recently placed talent at the company that created Club Penguin.

10. Employees get free use of a waterfront beach house in Hawaii (after the house in Florida was wrecked by a hurricane).

11. Our creative director proposed to his wife online via an Aquent job posting.

12. We represent Gino Bona, the copywriter who won the NFL's 2007 "Write an ad for the Superbowl" contest. (View clip)

13. An Aquent talent designed the Massachusetts custom license plate featuring the "Right Whale."

14. Erin Bloom, Aquent's Director of PR, directed her junior high school's production of "Cats" after beating out Grammy-winning artist Pink (a.k.a Alecia Moore) for the lead. See for yourself.

15. Our LA office keeps a running tally of their candy supply via resident Blogger, Propagandist, and Stuff Coordinator Tim Donnelly's blog.
    

So, what random Aquent-ness can you chip in?

Aquent and the AMA engaged the Dihedral Group to conduct a couple surveys asking marketers about salaries and hiring trends, as I mentioned in this post. Well, the findings have been analyzed, reflected upon, and transformed into a convenient white paper, "The Pragmatic Recession," which you can also find here, along with a recording of our recent webcast on digital marketing management.

There's a lot of interesting stuff in this document, but one thing that jumped out at me was the following: When hiring new marketers, managers are less concerned about depth experience and much more concerned about finding people whose skill-sets match their needs. While this makes sense on the face of it, I can't help but remind folks that when you hire somebody and it doesn't work out, it's rarely about their skills. On the contrary, it's all about fit.

Unless you spend your days managing a healthy portfolio, spending your inherited wealth, or begging on the streets, then you have to work and, specifically, you have to work for somebody. The question is, "Are you getting your money in lumpy chunks from various individuals or are you getting it in uniform amounts at regular intervals from the same person or organization?" In the first case, you are an "independent professional." In the second case, you're working for "The Man."

When MacTemps changed it's name to Aquent in 1999, becoming what we are today, we were pushing the idea of "Work 2.0." Related to what Daniel Pink in Fast Company called, "Free Agent Nation," the concept was that people could work happily and successfully as independent professionals or career freelancers. For a certain sector of the population - creative, technical, and other "knowledge" workers - working independently was not just an option, as it had always been, but was the future of work as such. (Indeed, in times like these, hiring freelancers becomes much more appealing to managers trying to do more with less, and working as a freelancer means you have more options and aren't tied to the fate of one particular company.)

The benefits of working independently are and were: 1) focus (doing only work you enjoy and are good at); 2) variety (you move from company to company/team to team/place to place); and 3) independence (as the name implies). The downsides are: 1) the hustle for gigs; 2) taking care of business (i.e., doing all the admin/businessy stuff that sucks to do); and 3) independence.

"Independence" shows up twice because it's a two-edged sword. On the one hand you are "free" of dependence on any single source of income (The Man) - if one client drops you, it's not the end of the world; if The Man drops you, you're out on the street. On the other hand, you have no one like The Man on whom you can depend to take care of business or create a kind of buffer for you to concentrate on your stuff.

This is the devil's bargain of working for The Man. The Man can take care of you, provide you with health benefits, a sales force, a staff, workspace, etc. so that you can do your thing. At the same time, if The Man decides from one day to the next that your services are no longer required, you're "set free," (actually, they say, "let go," which feels more like "freefall" than "freedom"). The source of security is the ultimate source of insecurity.

So, is it better to work independently and suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to work for THE MAN? Tell me!

Image Courtesy of srqpix.

About a month ago, I copped to an emerging Twitter addiction. In the meantime, it's gotten worse, but I think it's about to get better.

It got worse when I found myself going on Twitter in the middle of the night (look, I couldn't sleep) and then when I installed TweetDeck, which is definitely a better crack-pipe when it comes to indulging in this insidious place/app/lifestyle/whatchamacallit.

It's been getting better over the last couple days since I realized: a) Twitter is incredibly distracting; b) less Twitter can really be more; and c) it can start to feel like an incestuous, self-referential echo chamber (as @amandachapel colorfully and caustically points out).

Twitter still intrigues me as a "one-dimensional version of Second Life" (in a good way, kind of). That is, it is a virtual space where you can meet and interact with other humans but, thanks to the fact that it is text-based (ie., one-dimensional in a McLuhan sort of way) it is easier to navigate, explore, and enjoy than SL was for me (oh, SL, I loved you....once).

Anyway, if you're on Twitter, let me know. If I'm interested, I'll follow ya. If you like what I'm puttin' down, follow me @aquentminister.

Still, whether we follow one another or not, I strongly encourage you to enjoy Twitter responsibly and in moderation. It can be a killer.