JKR

It’s not new, but over the last few months the concept of augmented reality (a type of virtual reality that presents the world’s environment merged with, or augmented by, computer-generated imagery) has really exploded. Despite the apparent obstacles – need for a webcam and willing consumers who have the time to understand the concept – more and more brands are using AR to engage with their audience.

Is this just another gimmick or is the technology just being used in a gimmicky way? As with Apps, doing it is pointless unless there is a compelling idea or functional benefit attached. As the medium takes off, surely we’ll see it used to dramatise brand truths, run competitions, provide instructions, hints and tips, richer nutritional info, links to relevant sites etc etc. We are at the tip of the iceberg, but at a macro level, along with animated Apps and moving ads on the tube, basic brand communication is becoming more and more about movement.

And even at the basic promotional level there are some pretty engaging examples of creative augmented reality strategies. “Doritos’ Lovers”, launched in Brazil, is a great example as it allows consumers to create their very own Doritos 3D Lover Monster which can then be uploaded onto the owner’s social network profile, and unleashed to interact with other Lover Monsters (watch below). It’s not about the crisps, but instead being part of the brand, so it cleverly extends further than simple product promotion.

Also available to watch here

Levi’s is adding this label to their jeans stateside, recommending sustainable washing behaviour and encouraging passing the jeans onto others more needy when you are done with them. On one hand it is very scrooge like to be cynical of any CSR initiative. On the other…well, all the communication here puts the responsibility on the consumer, who might feel a bit nagged and wonder if the company itself practises what it preaches. It’s kind of like reading in your hotel room that the management want you to re-use your towel, not to save them a job, heavens no, but to save the planet.

Encouraging good behaviour is fine, but it risks looking like token CSR messaging if the brand isn’t overtly leading the way somehow. Secondly, I thought the whole point of Levi’s was to wear them till they fell apart – that they got better as they got older, and giving them up was only possible when they were truly past physical redemption. But perhaps as a brand introducing new lines regularly, the shelf life on a pair is now only as long as a passing fashion for a particular cut? My point being not that do-gooding is wrong, but that the most powerful and inspirational way to motivate consumers needs to feel like it comes from a brand’s heart, rather than appearing tacked on (even if the basic motivation is pure and well-intentioned). Levi’s are also doing work with “obey” designer Shepard Fairey in the US – perhaps they should get André the giant to lay down the law on how we should behave?

Douwe Egberts concept, BeMoved vending machine, turns buying a drink into a physical game for the young at heart, allows on-screen click and drag coffee customisation, gives you real-time news and weather and lets you log your personal preferences. All very Minority Report. And all indicative of the way technology is broadening our choices (I was told by someone in the know recently that our relationship with comparison sites is about to invert – rather than us choosing from what’s available, we will soon be putting our needs out to tender, for competitors to bid on).

But this general movement towards more and more choice and noise must surely also be creating a space where simplicity can have a certain cachet. Brands offering over-information and over-engineered complexity feel like they are locked in an arms race, all those whistles and bells signifying little that will build lasting brand value, and what consumers want (beyond a little novelty) is not always at the heart of the thinking. But perhaps these are just the views of a Luddite who is out of step with the amount of time and attention folk want to give to buying a vended beverage?

The above image and headline came from satirical news site “The Onion”. It’s nice to know that it isn’t only the UK where politicians feel we need to be nannied into healthier choices. The current TV and bus-side communication, around the hidden dangers of salt, strikes me as slightly political – is the FSA justifying its existence with this campaign in light of Tory scepticism? Perhaps, but as we have observed before, the FSA’s campaigns can actually benefit smart brands who honestly engage with them. And as a design agency they are our safety net – when journalists naively ask “what tricks do you play to get around legislation and hide the real nature of a product’s nutritional facts?”, they suppose we are skillful dissemblers playing a game of duplicity – actually, as any fule kno, that’s a highway to brand disaster, and truth well told is by far the smarter option.

But funnily enough, designers are not trained nutritionists – we assume that the facts given to us to communicate are essentially true, and thanks to the FSA, we can point to a body whose existence allows us to presume this to be the case.

What makes a brand cool? The movie adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are came out in the States on Friday and the buzz suggests it is the very definition of cool. Meanwhile, the Coolbrands 09/10 supplement in yesterday’s Observer newspaper was peppered with expert opinion and theory on why some brands are cooler – plenty about first mover advantage and the like, little about the basic (self evident?) contribution of bold design and clients. However, Mark Blenkinsop of agency Exposure made some points which I thought were enlightening. He talked about the notion of “distribution as communication” – where the brand is sold, how, who to, and how the competition on adjacent shelves can all combine to give a brand the right image for cool consumers.

I thought of this when looking at the promotional tie-ins for the Wild Things film. Cool book, cool director (Spike Jonze), cool soundtrack and uber-cool merchandising and marketing. The following images were posted on (of course) coolhunting. It’s all so “now” it could almost be a parody of overblown marketing trends, from “pop up stores” to high fashion tie ins, via designer sneakers and jewellery:

The pop up store in LA:

The exclusive on-set photography prints at Urban outfitters:

The jewellery collection & furnishings:

The fashion collections:

The collectable kubricks:

The inevitable sneaker editions:

Looking at all this it occurs that while being a cool brand is desirable and lucrative, it is an approach which intentionally limits the brand appeal to the “right” people rather than the masses. Limited editions, limited availability, limited time only – even the plastic figurines are collectible “Kubricks” rather than something which comes with a happy meal burger. I’m not sure how many adult sized wolf outfits they will sell, and I doubt that this is the point. This is not to knock all the wonderful creative work which seems like a smart way to promote the film to the kind of hipsters and kidults who are presumably the target audience. But the obvious conclusion I came to is that while being cool is some kind of marketing holy grail, the cache one creates in such a distribution strategy by default restricts the brands’ potential to reach everyone. Which presumably suits the hipsters very well.