The best viral ad of all time. 11 million views on youtube and still going up. You MUST WATCH THIS.
Interuption won’t work for ever. The future of advertising is here. Time Inc CEO Laura Lang adds her thoughts on Content Marketing
‘It’s not my job to comment on the downfall of civilisation’ A rare interview with Larry Hackett, People’s Managing Editor. Plus, Time Inc launches the biggest campaign ever seen in support of People’s newsstand proposition.
Here is USA Today‘s new logo. Designed by Wolff Olins, it’s modern, clean, and I can completely see how they came to this solution. We’ll come back to the design in a minute, but for now, what does it actually mean? My first reaction was that the uncompromising minimalism says this is a brand that is still defined by what it is not.
Since it’s launch in 1982, USA Today has been lying around hotels and motels across America. It’s never caused much offence and I suspect never been read very often. But its mild mannered ubiquity has seen it become Americas second largest print newspaper along with a website boasting over 38 million visitors. So this redesign is a BIG deal.
Particularly, as instead of analysing the print, everyone is now interested in what all the web, tablet and mobile platforms are going to look like. I haven’t seen the paper yet, but I’ve zipped through the digital stuff and for the most part, it looks good.
The site is very much improved. This is the new home page, which aside from the cool look and feel, has binned off the MPU ads, and replaced them with some massive full width display ads deeper in the site. Adage has good reporting on the new ad strategy. Which may, or may not work out…
However, this is the tablet version, which is poor by comparison. Given how slick the browser experience is on a tablet, you really wonder why anyone will bother with the app.
I suspect the mobile version has the potential to be the best of three. I really like the way it has been organised, here are a couple of screens to give an idea.
The paper looks good, although the central graphic flatters to deceive somewhat, as it doesn’t actually mean anything. And of course, the headlines seem tiny to these European eyes. Other commentators on twitter have been less kind. @weareyourfek says: ‘The redesign looks like BuzzFeed printed out and turned into a car wash flyer’. Ouch!
And as you might expect, The Onion has been particularly cruel, with this fantastic infographic, above.
Elsewhere, there has been plenty of comment on the business plan. The New York Times says that Gannett, who own USA Today along with 82 other papers and 23 broadcast stations, is attempting to consolidate all its news operations into one big hub. And that this redesign is a way of leveraging that benefit. It might also explain why ‘Gannett’ is part of the new logo.
But they also quote Alan D. Mutter, a respected industry expert, who says: “The real problem is what is the real mission of USA Today. It used to tell me the weather. Now I have the app for that. The once revolutionary and original mission of the paper has been usurped.”
Which brings us to the nub of the problem. USA today was launched in 1982 with the mission of ‘providing news and information that was clear, concise and presented largely without opinion’ (my italics).
To not have a point of view today just doesn’t work, if it ever did. With content everywhere, we need brands to guide us through, to make sense of all the noise, and to give us their valued opinion. Without that, plain content means very little.
Adage has good reporting here on the paper’s plans to improve this. They have hired the excellent Michael Wolff as their new media comentator, (read his great story on Tina Brown here) and there are plans to get the journalists allow their own voice come through more strongly. But can they really do it?
This is the slick promo video that explains the new mission. It starts well, with a big pitch about using ideas and visual storytelling to create a sense of unity in the nation. But then comes the bit where it declares that their product is all about ‘understanding and utility’.
NO WAY is that going to cut it. To quote Lady Macbeth, they need to ‘screw their courage to the sticking place’. They’ve made a big fuss about their new logo having some balls, here is a chance to use them.
They should get some hierarchy to the stories. It’s currently so flat that I cannot tell what’s important. They don’t seem to know either, as online the splash wanders around between either the Chicago teachers union going on strike, a random boxing match or a spat over Civil ware re-enactment authenticity.
This lack of editorial direction is transmitted through the new logo design like a tuning fork. The old logo was literal, the map device tells us that here is a newspaper for folks who, er, travel around America a lot. Not brilliant, but at least specific.
By comparison, the new logo seems reluctant to say anything at all. The structure is fine, as is the colour. The neutral typography might be OK if it was paired with a symbol that had something about it. Equally, the blue circle might just work if there was some engagement with the type. There is nothing that distinguishes the type from the headlines, and the symbol has no intrigue other than its emptiness.
And yet, I like it.
Sam Ward, the designer behind the logo, has made a lengthy defence of the work, stating: ‘I believe our balls are symbols of who we are and where we’re headed. They are signposts, perhaps; reminders that offer inroads into America’s stream of consciousness’. If this is true, the logo will only really come to life if the editorial content does too.
1861 aside, America has never been more divided that it is today. For evidence on that, go no further than Romney’s recent 47% comment. Surely, here is a real opportunity for USA Today to grab the nettle, and lay down some clear markers as to their editorial direction. To tell us what they believe in, and to give us genuine reasons to listen to them.
A good model for this is Business Insider. It’s got great tone, a wide range of content and an excellent range of length. There are super fast tweets, excellent infographics and longer, indepth pieces. This fine analysis on Romney and the USA economy, gives a good idea of their expertise.
USA Today have given op-ed space to Romney, but that’s not the same as saying what they think. They don’t need to come out for either Romney or Obama, but they should tell us which parts of each candidates platform they agree with. Then, middle America might begin to take some thought leadership from the brand, rather than turning to other, totally polarised media outlets.
USA Today can maintain a balance, but they also need to accept Tibor Kalman’s best ever piece of advice: ‘If you make something no one hates, no one loves it’
Update:Under Consideration have published an excellent in-depth review of the redesign, showing how the logo circle acts as a content vehicle for all the separate sections of the paper.
I bought the latest issue of Adbusters last week in the Serpentine Gallery for a fiver. Unusually for them, the cover was weak (more on that later), some of the content totally impenetrable (more on THAT later) and then there was this spread.
Featuring a quote from former US President George W. Bush opposite Pauline Cutler’s picture of an African child on a pipeline, it’s one of the most moving pieces of editorial I’ve seen in a long time. In a second, it caused me to think, think again, and then vow to take action. But what action? How should Adbustersmagazine direct my anger and motivation?
Adbusters was set up in Vancouver in 1989. It describes itself as: “A global network of artists, activists, writers, pranksters, students, educators and entrepreneurs who want to advance the new social activist movement of the information age.”
One of the more visible aspects to the organisation is the magazine. There are no real ads, only spoofs, and it remains a freewheeling piece of work, with no particular internal structure that I can make out. At its best, it feels a bit like Colors magazine at its best, which is praise indeed. So why am I so frustrated?
We’ll start with this issue’s cover. As you can see, it may look pretty, but makes no sense to me, or I’m sure anyone else within a 5 second newsstand purchase window. But Adbusters magazine has a world class track record on covers (see below), so we can forgive them an occasional dud.
I’m not sure about credits for all these stunning pieces, but Unit 9 seems to have done a good few of them. Coverjunkie has a fine gallery of recent covers, with plenty of others elsewhere online.
No, the thing I am cranky about is the writing in the darned thing. The current issue has a lengthy story about Occupy, of which Adbusters, having started the whole thing off, is the patron saint. It’s a scholarly text with some good observations on ‘The enigma of revolt’, but boy, is it a tough read.
This is the sell. After which I defy any mortal to continue reading who doesn’t have a dictionary to hand.
Adbusters own Wikipedia page, says this: ‘The magazine aims to provoke anti-consumerist epiphanies. By juxtaposing text and images, the magazine creates a means of raising awareness and getting its message out to people that is both aesthetically pleasing and entertaining’.
That’s what the spread at the top of this post does so well. But aside from the visual panache, the magazine does need to deliver something more substantial, something with some direction on what action to take now, aside from just pitching a tent.
Long form journalism is still a fine way to deliver the arguments. Ideas that will get us to change our minds, and to change our ways. Abusters magazine looks amazing, but for a text that really works, read this profoundly moving article in Rolling Stone about Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math. Now, if only we could join the two brands together…
This brilliant picture is up today on the Sartorialist, the original and best street fashion blog. He tells us that the store in question is in New York City, somewhere on 8th Avenue. I can tell you that there are 104 comments on the post, with most of them discussing the girl’s socks!