JKR

Pavé is an “ultra-lux” liqueur of the type you will have seen before, typically being brandished by music stars in photos from glamorous sponsored parties (but less typically spotted down your local). It’s “distilled through high quality diamonds” for purity. Ho hum. Pavé belongs to a particular category of premium products that unabashedly focus on a slightly vulgar “designer” modernity, inset Swarovski Crystals and all. As Russia and China continue to preoccupy marketers thoughts, we regularly receive briefs suggesting we “bling things up a little” and Pavé’s publicity photos suggest they might have a certain type of wannabe oligarch in their sights.

But it’s possible we are viewing the luxury market in these territories in a rather one dimensional manner. A report, “Deeper Luxury” by the WWF on the seemingly unrelated worlds of luxury brands and sustainability, made this observation: “In China, the concept of luxury relates to the Confucian concept of “face”, or personal reputation. There are two aspects to face: mien-tzu and lien. The former usually refers to material prestige and displays of wealth, while the latter refers to moral standing, the loss of which makes it hard to function in Chinese society. The Mandarin term for luxury may be translated as “show-off goods”, indicating that luxury consumption is currently driven by mien-tzu. In future, it may be driven to a greater extent by lien.”

Perhaps, as the WWF suggest, we are missing an appetite for premium brands with depth? The report also notes that in such territories, where the contrast between haves and have nots can be extreme, governmental intervention will also frown on too much inspirational marketing: “the mayor of Beijing has said that advertisements for luxury products “are not conducive to harmony”. The local market regulator added that “there is a problem with certain advertising not conforming to the demands of a socialist spiritual civilisation”. Consequently, the mayor of Beijing ordered all luxury billboards to be removed.

Maybe, for those of us designing remotely for such markets, we might want to dig a little deeper than the surface assumptions?

Mother have put on a fashion show for Target as a huge live event with models filling the huge windows of New York’s Standard hotel (the footage reminded me of Elvis and dancers in Jailhouse Rock). Meanwhile, a huge billboard campaign for Sky Arts takes up the length of Tottenham Court Road and other locations with Rankin photographs creating a “street gallery”.

Both are examples of designing advertising as “events”. It sounds pretty obvious that if a bit of free PR can be generated by an ad, then it works the budget harder. But both are also good examples of design which reflects the brand’s proposition or equities. In Sky Arts case, the “gallery” approach is obviously fitting and in Target’s, the building was turned into a vast light show which chimes with the brand’s bold graphics. As branding continues to be applied in a 360 way, the equities at a brand’s core become ever more important to define in order to support such stretches of communication.

The ever informative brandgym blog pointed me towards this neat innovation from Lego: DESIGN by ME allows you to design your own model on line, and buy it, with a customised box and building instructions. As a brand stretch which keeps close to the brand’s equities, it’s smart and engaging.

But I think it’s also further evidence of the way products and brands are flexing to make the most of the design opportunities presented online. As  our shopping increasingly moves from bricks to clicks we will be seeing a more fluid and limber approach to the boxes and goods we bring into our homes.

The Farmville 7-Eleven packs and suchlike are just the beginning of the blurring between the digital and physical manifestation of brands. And Lego’s innovation also squarely hits the “enable our consumer’s creativity” trend that has been rumbling on for a few years now, and which drives ever greater engagement between customer and brand.

There is a brilliant new book of antique London photographs (Lost London, 1870-1945) which I would highly recommend. The surprise for me in the pin sharp images of the streets was the sheer volume of painted advertising and signage. We flatter ourselves today that we are at information overload, but the commercial areas of the capital portrayed here are eye-popping decorated in claim above claim (in a way that makes many of today’s equivalent spaces appear demure by comparison). Seemingly the only restriction on how gilded the shop and restaurant frontages could become was how tall the sign painter’s ladder reached.

There are still traces of this era as one moves about London. The fine frontage of James Smith’s Umbrella shop remains a treat. And ghostsigns is just one site which catalogues the old beauties before they are gone forever.

One thing to admire in old signage is the craft and ability that went into the typography, most of it the work of humble tradesmen one imagines. Perhaps the quality goes hand in hand with the time and effort it took to get the stuff up there. Coming bang up to date, film maker Don Letts commented in this weekend’s Observer “The downside of affordable technology is mediocrity. Back in the 70’s every three minutes film cost £20. Now you can get a 90-minute digital tape for a fiver. The price used to weed out the people who were fucking about”. Perhaps a similar comparison can be made in the difference between paint and pixels?

Here’s a little story which demonstrates how even the smallest piece of pack graphics can be turned into a very big deal indeed. Honest Tea is an American brand in the Innocent Drinks mold. Coca-Cola has a major stake in them. The New York Times ran a piece wondering how they would retain their culture now that Coca-Cola is their major investor.

A crunch moment came over Honest Tea’s on pack claim to be free of high fructose corn syrup. Coca-Cola were concerned this could be seen as a pejorative comment on their own sugary drinks which do contain the ingredient. According to the article Coke suggested removing the line, or amending it to “sweetened with organic cane sugar” (sounds too processed said Honest Tea) or “no fake stuff” (too vague said Honest Tea).

With a total sale to Coke on the horizon, the article wondered how things would play out. A week later, another article informed us that Honest Tea had held its ground, and Coke had accepted its decision. The article was accompanied by an interview where the brand’s founder explained how the relationship with Coke had enabled more Fairtrade lines, more sustainable packaging, and noted that it “was unfortunate” the previous article focussed on one small bump in the relationship.

All fair enough, but if one was a cynic or conspiracy theorist one might wonder, was there ever really an issue? From one perspective, Honest Tea have given the paper two juicy stories which highlight their product USP and indie credentials. Nothing nefarious in that – in fact, following this line of thinking, the brand has brilliantly spun a dreary on-pack claim into some effective PR. As noted at the top, even the smallest piece of design can become a powerfully sweated asset if a little savviness is employed.