JKR

“Never underestimate the potency of cheap music” quipped Noel Coward. He might as easily have been talking about the design vitality to be found in comic books, for so long patronised as “low art.”

These days Frank Miller keeps good company. He has been given star billing in his campaign for Gucci Guilty, which sees Millers now trademark noir styling co-opted to sell high end fragrance. It’s part of a mini trend which sees the promotion for Channel’s new scent set up as a “new film by Martin Scorsese”, to be premiered on TV next week.

It wasn’t always so glitzy. Frank Miller began his career at Marvel drawing and writing Daredevil. As a kid I bought his first and many subsequent issues – 12p a copy then, about £15 on eBay now – better than most stocks perform I guess. The real Daredevil was Miller, who relentlessly innovated storytelling techniques from panel to panel. Alongside Will Eisner he’s been massively influential in the way we have collectively learned to read images and words as integrated design. Design that is unencumbered by the good manners required at the top table has a better chance of re-writing the rules.

From “penny dreadfuls” (as pulp and comics were once branded) to “graphic novels” such as Miller’s Sin City, from men in tights to a luxury apparel brand. We all grow up – these days I find Miller’s style (or at least the content) a bit adolescent. The Gucci tie-in feels like a clash rather than a marriage of brand styles. But perhaps that’s my problem for being past it, and getting all snooty.

Nevertheless I would observe that if one is looking for the next influential design style, it’s more likely to be found printed on cheap paper (and dismissed as kids stuff) than it is being browsed by “thought leaders” in a glossy style magazine.

I work with brands, I have kids. Surely I should be quick to understand that the crowd sourced satire of the Change4Life identity is intended to highlight the potential evils of getting brands to fund it. The ads, such as those above, make it clear that brands are, y’know, really cynical. But having glanced at an article in Marketing, my first direction to learn more was not the originators (The Children’s Food Campaign). Instead, having only followed the story with half an eye, I assumed the online ads were actually feisty new work from Change4Life, rather than an attack upon them.

I will leave it to Mumsnet to judge who has the moral high ground in the debate over corporate involvement. But if you are going to criticise a brand or organisation, appropriating its imagery so faithfully risks scoring an own goal. All those BP logo parodies work because they are clearly adulterated images, but I think this campaign offers great free publicity for Change4Life, and supports their healthy message.

By the by, is having the Change4Life campaign brought to us by the nanny state any more virtuous than getting brands to foot the bill? Will brands really corrupt the message to crassly sell more sweeties? If you think so then you can add to The Children’s Food Campaign and write your own ad here. But below is my own attempt…

A set of 21 papers published by the Royal Society spell out a challenging future for food production: a potential need to increase supply by up to 70% in the next 40 years, as populations rise. But we are maxing out on arable land to use.

There are plenty of proposed solutions (artificial meat created in a vast vat anyone?). But one major help will be reducing the 30-40% of food waste which is typical in both developed and developing countries.

Obviously consumers could play their part by buying less, and learning to cook meals from what they have. But packaging will surely develop substrates that will extend food’s lifecycle. While being “sustainable” is somewhat generic, the specificness of this challenge means it is one that a brand could tackle and truly “own”. Moving from “best before” to “use by” information would be a simple start. Selling less product, as some bread brands are doing, might also become the norm.

Napoleon, famous for stating that “an army marches on its stomach” drove the research and development of preserved foods, with a prize of 12,0000 francs for a successful breakthrough. Chef Nicolas Appert won in 1810 for his method of packing food in bottles, corking them and submerging them in boiling water to stop spoilage. He used his prize money to open the world’s first commercial cannery. Could packaging be on the cusp of similar breakthroughs now, as again necessity proves to be the mother of invention?

Forty years hence, today’s brands will likely be caught in a pincer movement, between the “grow your own” fresh local food producers, and companies such as Monsanto, whose grasp on the intellectual property of efficient food development will potentially make them market leaders. It’s a brave new world, but right here right now, food brands could be doing more to ensure they end up eaten, not binned. Below is an info graphic from next generation food with some startling statistics:

Newsnight did a great piece last week about the rise and ubiquity of beautiful information graphics as the number crunching trend du jour. It ended with David McCandless and Neville Brody debating the merits of the approach.

One imagines that outside design circles the debate was an unedifying display of airy statements and designer bitchiness “your work’s very pretty, well done” sniped Brody patronisingly. Given that Brody is still saddled with the reputation he made in the ’80s designing uber trendy magazine The Face, this seemed a little rich.

Designer luvvies aside, it’s significant that the trend warrants Newsnight airtime. In fairness, McCandless is probably one of the most influential graphical communicators today. It’s his work illustrating this post. With two billion computers worldwide filling our heads with over-information we are clearly looking for ways to make all those facts and figures both easily digestible and (crucially ignored in the debate) not dreary. If the facts also work as eye candy, there is a chance we might engage with them.

What I am wondering is why no mainstream brand has adopted the approach yet to dramatise its nutritional or sustainable claims online or on pack. A small prize to the first reader who sends in a good example proving otherwise.

Which of these sustainability initiatives do you like? UPS have launched a reusable envelope. It looks nice, is a sound simple idea, but given the LOVEFiLM envelopes, not particularly original (although the online blurb gives the impression it’s an innovation).

Or the limited edition Heineken bottle billed as “100% sustainable”. It’s beautiful and made completely from recycled aluminum, but that aluminum would have been mined, typically leaving a nasty scar in the jungle. So the claim seems curious (and some desktop research yielded nothing more on this).

Or this sharpener for a razor, to promote your reusable blade’s life by many times.

You may think all these are great, and for sure they are steps in a more sustainable direction, which can only be positive. But two years after the received industry wisdom was to avoid green-wash and focus on effecting genuine change, do you get a sense that sustainability initiatives are still being co-opted into marketing buzz on a par with pop-up shops and limited editions? And are we not hoping for something a little more fundamental from our super brands?

For me, the razor sharpener wins hands down. Its flaw, if you are in marketing, is that it would lead to falling sales in disposable razors. So guess what? It is not being promoted by a brand. It reminds me of the Alec Guinness movie “The man in a white suit” where he invented a fabric which couldn’t be destroyed – a boon for the man in the street, but he was run out of town by the combined interests of the unions and the factory owners. Surely the time is ripe for a brand to grasp the opportunity to re-invent the category rules by such brave, rather than tactical, innovation. If you championed the longevity of your blade, you could own the thought leading high ground and charge a premium. It’s a wonky business case, but is it one worth considering?