The music video, “I think she’s ready” by FKi, Iggy Azalea, & Diplo is being called “The World’s First Interactive Shoppable Video.” Shot in LA and styled entirely by Ssense, all the items in the video can be purchased using an interactive hotspot technology from wireWax that lets you purchase directly through the video. Just click on Iggy Azalea as she’s throwing her lines and you can have the same look for tonight’s party. 

http://www.ssense.com/video/iggy-azalea-diplo-fki-i-think-she-ready/

Last week, Ikea announced its new living room concept Uppleva, their first dip into consumer electronics. But there’s a twist. Ikea tackles the age old dilema, “what do you do with all those damn cables?” Though not a revolutionary idea, it appears that Ikea is perfectly positioned not only from a cost perspective but an unconscious consumer need for seamlessness; an invisible relationship with technology.

Since the ’50s and ’60s designers have been trying to integrate TVs and other consumer electronics into furniture. In the 2003 parody ‘Down with Love’, there are many examples of these built in electronics that further accentuates the main characters’ 1960s playboy lifestyle. Unfortunately, just like the lifestyle, only a select few could afford such customized, expensive products. As a result when electronics became available in pieces, the seamless integration was de-prioritized. We learned to live with cable and wires from radios, video/dvd players, record/vhs/tape/cd players, computers, monitors, external drives, and the hardware of choice that let us connect to the internet.

Then (for me anyway) wireless devices changed the consumers relationship with technology. Technology started to integrate seamlessly with everyday life. The stacks of metal boxes in the home became smaller, untethered as technology became affordable, accessible, necessary. Consumers didn’t have to choose between power and size. At the same time the concept of an integrated lifestyle started to become popular again. Microsoft, over the years, produced it’s ‘Vision of the Future’ series that explores what a lifestyle where technology is seamless could look like. But, as the title suggests, it was still a peak at the future.

Last week Ikea closed that gap. At least in the living room. The success of Ikea’s new line is yet to be seen but, more than before, it seem it will have a chance to be tested by everyone, in real time. I’m sure this will spark shifts in many companies product pipeline. I for one won’t miss the dust bunnies that currently live in the wire-nests behind my TV. They will just have to hop along and find new homes elsewhere.

This isn’t really a rant against stock photography nor a critique on a particular style of book cover design — it’s just something I’ve been noticing. We all know the perils & pitfalls and yes, the advantages, of instant stock imagery but in the long run, perhaps it’s best to have your own unique, original imagery and if you can’t afford that then a really good designer. The same can be applied to brand building and the layers of meaning attached to a logo or a product. Visual positioning is essential for brands and, let’s be honest here, we do judge books by their covers, don’t we?

In most cases the image on the right is the most recent version. Thank to the internet for all sourced imagery.

Flipping the image — no one would notice, would they?

At least there was a little color adjustment going on here.

The transparent overlay of skyscraper and clouds really didn’t ‘cover’ this.

It’s all a bit grotty 70′s motel, but at least Peter Handke’s original story DID come out in 1974.

No comment.

Adding illustration, flipping the image and increasing color saturation helps, but it’s not really new, is it? Even the titles are in the same place.

Apparently these two almost identical books came out barely a month apart.

An ever-so-slight color adjustment made here.

These two even kept the same sepia tone.

OK, we get it.

For those that need a palette cleanser, visit “The Book Cover Archive” and Surrounded by Colours, “Polish Book Covers.”

Our office is located in Santa Monica, so I often have cause to drive along Lincoln Blvd, its main thoroughfare. I comment all the time on how run down and shabby so many of the storefronts are. The paint is peeling off, neon signs are only half lit; stores, inside and out, are a cluttered mess. I wonder why the building/business owners don’t seem to care to make their place of business more appealing to the passerby. I’m sure it all comes down to cost, especially “in this economy”, but shouldn’t the curb appeal of your business equate to more money for your business and therefore the whole reason why you should spend more?

An article published by yellowpages.com states:
“Your storefront can make or break your business. It’s a form of advertising, as well as the beginning of the customer experience. You can have the perfect location but waste it if your storefront and building looks shabby and dated or if customers fail to notice it. Retail curb appeal is more than just creating an aesthetically pleasing storefront. Retail curb appeal is about making people want to come inside and buy. If you are a retailer, your store is your brand. Effectively attending to your storefront and building, then, is one of the most important branding steps you can take. The storefront sends the world a message about your business and its personality.”

Making people want to come inside and buy. Enhancing curb appeal. Sounds like what we do for our clients.

The beauty of information design has been it’s ability to condense a mountain of information/data into a nice bite-size chunk. In video, it can become history’s trailer, condensing decades upon decades of information into a YouTube break. However it’s viral popularity cannot rely on information alone. Theatrics and humor are as much a part of a video’s success as the correctness of the content. Viral videos amateur appearance is but a dress for a very smart girl who just became a little more approachable.

I was intrigued by the new Los Angeles Museum of the Holocaust before it was even built.

The construction site was completely obscured by fencing, but the posted architectural renderings caught my eye. When the fencing was finally removed, I realized the renderings didn’t do it justice. I saw an elegant and thoughtful design, beautifully integrated into a slope at a corner of hilly Pan Pacific Park. Partially below ground, it’s rooftop paths seem like extensions of the walkways in the park. When on top, or viewed from the park, one might be surprised to learn there is something inside.

Perhaps this was a problem. It was too integrated, too calm and collected. How could anyone find it?

The signage that now mars the museum exterior is clearly the result of poor planning, not to mention taste. I imagine a reactionary “signage committee,” eager to address a problem but unable to comprehend a larger picture. It looks hastily “designed” and installed, with absolutely no sensitivity to what the architecture was designed to achieve. A ham-fisted LOS ANGELES MUSEUM OF THE HOLOCAUST, set in Helvetica Bold , white letters crammed in a long black rectangle debases the museum. Making matters worse, the name is bookended on each end by what is perhaps the worst logo ever—an inelegant, literal symbol that further devalues the museum.

From across the street you can see the sign is crooked. Not even the installers cared enough to step back and take a good look.

The Museum of Contemporary Art Tokyo (MOT) is currently having an exhibition called ‘Architectural environments for tomorrow – new spatial practices in architecture and art.’ Among it’s participants is Haruka Kojin, the youngest of the exhibitors. Her piece ‘Contact Lens,’ uses two types of acrylic lenses, one flat and one warped, to create a poetic/distorted view of reality. Although the technique of distorting real environments isn’t a new idea (Alyson Shotz – http://derekeller.com/alysonshotz.html), Kojin’s  piece becomes seamless with the environment, pixelating the world in real time and space. The work invites interaction/participation drawing the audience to add and become a part of the piece. http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat/8/view/17527/haruka-kojin-contact-lens.html.

Branding is creating distinction, and there’s a point in a branding exercise when a company’s unique personality traits are devised. It’s as if a human being is being built—a living, breathing brand. It’s a part of the process I particularly enjoy.

While flipping through photos I’ve shot in various cities, I was drawn to images of Rome—specifically the distinctive storefront signage so abundant there. You see, I love cities. They’re the result of a massive collective endeavor, with their own unique complexities, histories and discoveries. Cities are rich in detail and no two are alike.

I was struck by the thought of how a city attains its personality without even trying. It just happens with time. In the case of Rome, its signage creates a singularly distinct and beautiful voice. I wonder how Romans would characterize their city.

As a designer, I’m drawn to this sort of detail. And I love typography. I haven’t seen anything else quite like it—in Italy or any other place.

We’ve all heard it: crowdsourcing is the future. It seems to make sense, and for a capitalist like me the fundamental idea is sound… you need a service, and there are a lot of hungry people out there willing to provide it — let them fight it out, you just reap the reward. You spend the least amount possible and receive the maximum reward for that. We could have all kinds of warm, emotional conversations about the “right” or “wrong” of that, but the truth is that it’s really just a numbers game… everyone, whether they admit it or not, wants the maximum reward for the minimum expenditure.

But while the individual reward of such an approach certainly seems clear, from a macro perspective there are all kinds of things that are wrong with this approach. First of all, the truth is that cheaper and better rarely go hand-in-hand. There is a reason why things that are exceptional are rare… the best of anything is inevitably in a minority. And while there are certainly times where this approach is valuable — say for example when trying to find the best price on toothpaste, where we know for certain that the product we’re buying is exactly the same wherever we buy it — we rarely employ it on things that are important to us, and where the outcome is dependent on the effort of the individuals providing the service.

Additionally, the net effect of contributing to such a system is that you have manipulated market forces downword. And while that may not matter to you in the short term, in the long term it means that the service which you’ve effectively said, “has little value to me” will lose the efforts of those that are exceptional. What the system will be left with is everyone else… those with enough free time to do anything you want for the slim potential of “winning” your attention. And for those contributing to this ever-declining system that are good at what they do, have proven to be short sighted: for the opportunity of one, very small reward, they have driven the price of what they aspire to do for a living drastically down. Good luck trying to make a living doing that.

So the question is, are there situations where paying more is worthwhile? Absolutely. When you’re sick, you don’t put an ad out for a doctor and take the lowest bidder. And even when given the option of using a med student over a doctor with years of experience, people will generally choose the doctor with more experience. When choosing someone to take care of your kids, you wouldn’t think to ask hundreds to apply and then select the lowest bidder and the most superficially attractive option. When you hire a contractor, you don’t hire the one desperate for your work and willing to take many times less than any professional would. So what do these things have in common? That the amount you are willing to spend is directly proportional to how important it is to you.

So since we’re designers here, let’s cut right to the chase and talk about something near and dear to our hearts: branding. Why not crowdsource your brand? Or at the very least, your logo? We could have all kinds of discussions about how you just may get a great result from this process… hundreds of options to choose from for less than you spent at Starbucks last month, or on your new smartphone. Yes, it’s possible… you may be able to channel your inner brand savant and find the one logo that seems to capture exactly who you thought your company was, taking into account the story of who you were, are and want to be, current design trends and fads, the challenges of creating a logo that works in print, web and video, the multiple instances necessary for multiple color and b&w scenarios, the potential evolution of the mark and finally, of course, how it reinforces and informs your larger brand initiative. And if you don’t, what’s the big loss… you didn’t pay that much for it anyway.

But a brand is built from the moment it first appears in the world. From that singular moment, you are being judged… not just by your potential customers, but by everyone. Designers, reviewers, politicians, investors, and of course, your competition. And I assure you, what your 99designs logo says about you is that I do not care about my brand. I’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on commercial-grade video equipment for my lobby, but I don’t care what you put on it. I’ve spent millions of dollars on advertising space in the Wall Street Journal, but it doesn’t matter what I say or show. And many people may agree with you, but the people that really matter won’t.

Think about the brands that stand out to you, the brands that are most successful. Apple, Nike, BMW, IBM. None of these brands were created through crowdsourcing. They were part of one very organized, very coordinated branding initiative, that was executed exceptionally well, across all media, over many, many years. And while someone may one day achieve such a thing through crowdsourcing (highly unlikely, unless the crowdsourcing of the components themselves was orchestrated by one very skilled individual or individuals), that magical case study will be the exception, not the rule.

There are certainly valuable things about the crowdsourcing model. Let’s say you’re a small business, just starting out and leveraging your credit cards to make ends meet while you wait for that “one big break.” Crowdsourcing is perfect for you. What if you’re starting a new career — maybe you’re a consultant or you’ve just started your own contracting business, and you feel like a logo will help you feel committed to your project, give you something to rally behind. Great, do it! This is a perfect use of this new, inexpensive resource. Use the model and the system.

But when you succeed, then pay someone appropriately to help you intelligently develop your brand. There is an expertise required to fully realize a brand that very few have. And the efforts of those few are valuable, as they should be. Your brand, from the moment it is created, is a living thing… it does not rest, it does not sleep, it is a constant in a sea of change, even as it changes the world around it. It is who you are, and who you aspire to be… and that my friends, is not a responsibility that belongs with the lowest possible bidder.