Stopping to smell the roses isn’t a new concept. In fact, it’s almost an overused expression. We rarely stop to smell the roses, let alone to stop to contemplate the power this phrase has over our lives.

In marketing, our consumers walk past flowers every day. They rarely will stop and smell the roses. Who can blame them? They’re over communicated. We all are.

As communicators, our industry has a responsibility to assure that consumers will stop and smell what we have produced. Ideally, of course, it would be a pleasant smell. Maybe an experiential event for the local sewage plant – actually, never mind. That’s just a bad idea.

So often, communicators do indeed make a rose. But they spend so much time painting their white roses red, they lose the beauty behind what was already there. Michelangelo said: “The best artist has that thought alone which is contained within the marble shell; the sculptor’s hand can only break the spell to free the figures slumbering in the stone”. He spoke to the inner beauty that most people ignore, while they assume they have to change something that is already beautiful.

It’s this respect communicators need to consider. Stop pushing messages that are bland and reused, try to find what really matters to your audience and go for it. Stop painting the roses red, chances are it took far too long to grow them in the first place.

Only once we start respecting the views of the audience and creating content that’s worth ‘smelling’, have we served our duty as communicators. It’s a big responsibility after all. Just…keep that smell pleasant.

Interact with me on Twitter - @AndrewRushmore
Interact with my agency on Twitter - @WeAreAgentX

This post is also featured on my personal website, andrewrushmore.com

In case you haven’t noticed, something is different about our blog.  No, it’s not that we’ve shifted directions and are now food critics at large (because the world needs another one of those). But there is definitely something different…

We have a new name! Steketee Greiner and Company has merged with experiential marketing agency Agent X out of Chicago, and we are now calling the new collective Agent X.

We’re still offering our clients the same full-service solutions in strategic planning, creative services, and measurement and insight analysis that we always have, but we’ve added some serious experiential marketing firepower to the stable.

Let’s face it – the marketing landscape is continually changing, and this merger enables us to mash together our services to create measurable, end-to-end brand engagements focused on live experiences that extend into the digital space. We feel this new focus is necessary to compete in a time where the lines continue to blur between experiential and digital.

The other good news is that this means we now have offices in both Grand Rapids and Chicago to serve you better!

Stay tuned for more stories, insights and so on as things develop.

That may sound funny to a lot of people, but it’s true. Before I ever get on my computer to “design” something, I always start by jotting down ideas on a piece of paper.

The great thing about pencil and paper is that it’s a visual extension of the brain, and it can capture ideas just about as fast as I can think of them. Contrary to belief, most designers (should) spend most of their time thinking and concepting.

It is great to be able to write down a word list really fast, or scribble out a quick drawing of whatever it is I am designing could look like. It is a great way for me to get all of my bad ideas out of my head. In fact, I carry a Moleskine that I have affectionately called my Fail Book. Almost everything I put in it is a failed attempt or idea pertaining to a project. But, all it takes is one idea, one simple sketch to make everything click.

My Fail Book is where I sketch out scads of images for logo ideas, or draw countless sitemaps and wireframes. It’s where I take notes on things I like and don’t like. It’s where I can look at something fast, make a decision on it and then move on. Projects always start off rough, but it is cool to see through simple sketching a thought process take shape. Ideas become more thought-out, sketches look cleaner and more refined. Everything comes together.

Adobe products are great, and my new 17″ MacBook Pro is amazing to look at. In the end, they make my projects look great, but it’s not where they take shape.

Things get too meticulous on the computer. It is too easy to get hung-up on little details such as pixel size and exact angles. It is a waste of time to design on the computer only to realize after all the effort of making it “perfect” that the idea or concept doesn’t work.

I heard a song one time, can’t remember it for the life of me, but the lyrics were “you don’t know where your going ’til you get there.” While that may be true in life, it is a very dangerous path to take when working on a design. I love knowing where I am going when I get on the computer.

Design is process. There are many steps that must be taken to make the end product look good and work to perfection. It is nice to have a solid place to start every time.

Cheers!

Kyle

I figured “designed”, but this question really stuck with me, and I’ll admit that I changed my answer after my initial reaction once I really began to think about it.

See, in design school, we are taught about iconic designers such as Paul Rand, Milton Glaser and especially Ivan Chermayeff & Tom Geismar. Their work (in specific cases) is thought to be iconic, and it really is. IBM, I Love New York and the NBC logos are perfect examples of what it means to be “iconic”. They are easily recognizable and more importantly—identifiable.

These logos, and many more, are so well designed. They are all simple, clever and unique. These are obviously the reasons they are iconic. I thought.

So many times in design school, and my early years of professional design (it will be two years in August), I wanted to design a logo or a wordmark that could stand up against Apple, Nike, McDonald’s and FedEx to name a few, but I wasn’t hitting the mark I wanted to hit, and I never understood why. My designs shared the same qualities as the “iconic” logos, but they never had that instant “pop” or emotional connection that the big brands all had.

That’s the key – big brands. And once I got to this conclusion, that’s when I changed my answer.

A logo doesn’t sell the product. It only identifies it. The (important word to follow) BRAND sells the product. But what is a brand? A brand is nothing more than a promise. It’s that emotional connection a consumer has with a company or product. It is what they come to expect. It is how they differentiate company from company and product from product.

The logo only identifies these connections, it doesn’t create them.

The brands, and subsequently, the logos succeed only because the product has stood the test of time. It is desirable to consumers because they have had, or know somebody who has (look at the designer talking about Social Media), a positive connection with the company or product. More positive connections = more sales = more $$ = bigger advertising spend.

The more I see the logo, the more recognizable it is and finally the more identifiable it becomes with the product or company.

So, with all that said, here’s a question of my own:

Assuming that iconic logos seem to be more the result of a big wallet, can a brand succeed in evoking emotion and making a connection without an identity? Can you fall in love with a faceless person if he or she is saying all the right things? I think we have a little “chicken or egg” conundrum here, and thoughts are welcome…

Cheers!

Kyle

Before you hit up the comments section and start a debate over which one of you hates ME more, please hear me out. I am not trying to be a rogue designer that just wants to be different (and tick people off in the process). And it’s not that I didn’t pay attention during Typography 210 (or something like that), where we were told which fonts were good, which were bad and which was the greatest (Helvetica, supposedly).

I also understand that Helvetica is arguably over-used, but that doesn’t even bother me. Honestly, it is a nice typeface; it has great, safe characteristics which make it viable for a lot of applications and mediums.

But…I can’t stand the capital ‘R’. The descender is awkward to say the least. For a typeface with such little connotative character, where did this rolling leg come from? The rest of the family is so sterile, so defined, so geometric, but the ‘R’ is so, so confusing.

To me, it looks likes Max Miedinger played “Pin the Tail on the P.” Sure, he put it in the right place (impressive for having been blind-folded), but that is to be expected from such letterforms displayed in the rest of the  family.

Or maybe his hand slipped when finishing out the letter. Many long nights have been put into his work, the accidental yawn / slip could be expected.

Whatever the case may be, I can’t stand it. Now, I realize that I have been praising the rest of what Helvetica has to offer, so I guess I have to retract my previous statement a bit. I actually hate 1/26th (not counting numbers or punctuation, who needs those anyway?) of the entire family (from 27 to 93).

And I thought I was the only one that had this growing internal irritation with Helvetica. I mean, it’s so universally loved that there was a movie made because of the impact and popularity of the typeface. But I have 2 “R’s” in my last name, and seeing it set all caps in Helvetica makes my left eye twitch a little.  Luckily, in my research (to prove I am not crazy) I found this guy. It’s comforting to know I am not alone.

Unfortunately, I don’t think I will ever like the capital ‘R’ in Helvetica. I don’t change my appetite much, considering I still don’t like grapes, bananas or many other forms of fruit.

I want to hear from you though. Let me know whether your a lover or a hater (of Helvetica that is, not me).

Cheers!

Kyle

Question: In this developing world of social media and digital marketing, we all know that we need to reconsider the way we’re delivering content to our audiences, but do you feel like you have things under control? There are threads everywhere discussing how we’re losing control of the conversations going on around our brands and how we’ve entered into the age of transparency in messaging. The rage today seems to be around monitoring and measuring and conducting damage assessment and control once a conversation is made public. But let’s consider content in the context of measuring and monitoring and think about how brands can move from “reactive content victim” to “proactive participant in a meaningful conversation.”

So then, how are you developing content in the new media age? How are you planning to update all the social media channels and blog(s) your company is launching, or has already launched over the course of the year? These are big questions, and unless you know the answers to them, you may want to consider scaling your digital media plan to accommodate your ability to create content that will effectively represent your brand effectively in a two-way conversation with your audiences. The key word there is “two-way,” because you’re entering an environment that is built on networks and opinions and transparency, and if you’re merely in a position to launch messaging (even if you’ve spent millions of dollars testing its relevance) into the digital space without being able to measure its effectiveness and, more importantly, without having a strategy on how to respond if a conversation erupts around your thought, you’re leaving yourself vulnerable.

As we get into it, here’s a little background on where we are and where we’re heading:

Web 2.0 has enabled a two-way dialogue. Audiences have become “search savvy,” information flows and, most importantly, the line between professional and amateur content has started to blur. The challenge isn’t finding information, it’s knowing what to do with it…

The new age of Web 3.0 is about semantics. It’s enabling a new distribution relationship around content/data centered around Filtering (information and content) and Context (delivering the right message, at the right time, to the right person, with the right device). This approach to content is creating an open source social structure that will allow databases to talk to each other and encourage social network content that urges audiences to use snippets of content as they please and where they please to reach new levels of meaning between brands and audiences.

These changes are creating a MARKETING STRATEGY SHIFT…

Web 2.0 asked us to build massive sites and drive traffic to a place where we could try to control messaging. Web 3.0 is asking us to create content that can travel throughout the digital world via conversations with multiple participants, creating connections that drive content consumption, data collection and new content generation.

So, here’s the rub, and it’s a simple “if/then” proposition: if we’re now in a position that requires us to create content that will enable and respond to conversations about our brand, then how do we generate content plans that aren’t simply focused on feeding information and stories out to audiences, trusting in their ability to run with it? The answer’s simple: plan. Build a plan that maps out your entire content strategy across all your channels for the entire year. Of course, you need to leave some room to be reactive, but if your marketing plans are aligned with your business objectives, you should be able to create a conversation that you can feed to your audiences and interact with in an organized, ongoing basis throughout the year. And if you do this well, you’ll be able to measure not only the sentiment of what’s going on around your brand, but also the effectiveness of your content (for good or bad). Once you know that, you can create a content baseline that allows you to generate planned, targeted content year after year that is valued internally for its measurable effectiveness and externally for your contributions as the subject matter expert around your brand.

Google shows some of the most creative campaigns and projects that help expand our knowledge of what is possible, while inspiring us to create a more meaningful experience for the consumer.

Check it out.

87 cool things, even a few from us

The results are in. Interbrand has released it’s Best Global Brands 2009 report. Coke, IBM, Microsoft, GE and Nokia top the list. Click here to visit Interbrand’s site and download the complete report.