The Puget News

I saw a comment piece over at The Guardian entitled “You can’t use the O-word” and was persuaded to click through. What was this mysterious “O” word? First thought? “Oprah.” Yeah, that has to be it, she’s got a big name and needs to protect it. Then I thought, maybe this has nothing to do with trademark and everything to do with censorship. “Orgasm.” Yeah, that must be it.

Even before the resulting commentary could load, I was experiencing negative emotions about the word - most likely a legitimate word with legitimate literary associations that was about to be removed from that pool of words we can all liberally use. As it turns out, the word is “Olympics,” especially if you use it conjunction with “2012″ as a title. I kid you not.

How did we come to this? I doubt the original organization committee of the Olympic Games cared much about where their moniker was used. In fact, that’s probably what passed as “word-of-mouth” advertising. Somehow, however, now that we’ve reached a time and place where the Olympics truly are the world games, somebody (or at least certain entities) seems interested in controlling these associations. I guess nobody wants to hear about “Jihad at the [insert trademarked phrase here] Games” or “Terror Strikes the [insert trademarked phrase here] Games.”

I keep wondering what can be done about the privatization of language (and if you have thoughts on it, please eel free to add them in the comments section below). It seems too steep a cost for artists to produce meaningful and the be required to change it, often in substantive ways so that private and corporate interests are protected. The worst part of all of this is that the self-censorship has already begun. You will never see a murder novel entitled “The Cleaning Company [facial tissue brand] Killings.” What a shame.

We all know that Moleskine brands their notebooks as the choice of literati and artists. Every time you shop for a new one, the labels recite famous personages who have used them before you. An example of their effusive copy is found on their website:

MOLESKINE IS THE LEGENDARY NOTEBOOK,
USED BY EUROPEAN ARTISTS AND THINKERS
FOR THE PAST TWO CENTURIES.

THIS SILENT AND DISCREET KEEPER
OF AN EXTRAORDINARY TRADITION, WHICH
HAS BEEN MISSING FOR YEARS, HAS BEEN
REPRODUCED BY THE ITALIAN COMPANY MODO
& MODO SINCE 1998. WITH ITS VARIOUS
DIFFERENT PAGE STYLES IT ACCOMPANIES
THE CREATIVE PROFESSIONS AND HAS BECOME
A SYMBOL OF CONTEMPORARY NOMADISM.

MOLESKINE IS A FAMILY OF NOTEBOOKS
FOR DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, ACCORDING
WITH A FREE MINDSTYLE, BOTH BASIC
AND EMOTIONAL.

This block of text is associated with an image of Van Gogh’s image sketchbook if that “artist / cool kid vibe” wasn’t clear enough for you. The underlying message is, you too can be hailed as the next [insert artist name or author name here] if you use our notebooks to further your creativity.

Furthering that allure, Moleskine has gone even deeper and created a separate site called DETOUR aimed at exhibiting all the ways that creative people (they highlight architects, artists, designers, illustrators and writers) use their products.

I admire how Moleskine has been able to associate and brand something so mundane as being something high-end and inspirational. Even though I know what they’re doing with their branding, I still have a hard time disassociating the powerful feelings that it conjures. Moleskine is the beneficiary of a huge number of positive associations for me because they draft of the success of so many powerful visionaries.

Eventually, I buy another one. It’s my kryptonite. I have to. I am powerless. You had me at Hemingway you bastards! Now leave me alone!

The following video is a demonstration of how artist Paula Scher used a Moleskine to explore some quirky fonts:

It’s impossible for me to comprehend a personality like Paula Scher that can fill an entire notebook of doodles without any apparent mistakes. I look at that video and that’s what I’m dazzled by.

Now back to my mantra of “it’s just a notebook, it’s just a notebook, it’s just a notebook…”

[discovered via a post on 37signals]

Photo from the New York Times Article

Adobe has placed an engaging interactive wall advertisement for their Creative Suite 3 in New York’s Union Square. The ad wall is 7 feet tall, 15 feet long, and tracks human movement, animating a sequence of visual effects based on where the passerby happens to be located. You can see a photo and read more about the ad on the TED Blog . You can also view a video of people interacting with the display on Gizmodo’s AdWatch here.

While the movement recognition appears like it could take a bit more work, what this ad points to is either amazing or downright chilling.

How long will it be before ads are able to recognize biometric information in the targeting of their ads? At one personalization extreme, you get something like the “Minority Report,” where you are individually recognized and marketed to. “Hello, Eric Franklin. Have you thought about using the Adobe Creative Suite as a means of designing your monthly newsletter?”

There are a whole host of in-between options, however, that privacy advocates may not be able to fend off as directly as the full-on personalization (which I expect a significant number of people will resist). What if an ad could merely answer the question of whether it is targeting a male or female? I have to assume that that could be done with a some degree of accuracy based on facial structure, build, etc. What if an ad could target your demographic by looking at social cues such as clothing and jewelry? Is the only way to market more effectively to delve further and further into stereotyping (er, I mean “demographics”)?