Learning Process

The past week has been mentally busy, and setting out all of my key insights from my research, the most important insight has to be regarding brand terrorism, and the context of the term in its entirety. This insight, as previously pointed by the tutors present at the presentation last week, is already known to the general public, but what has been done to solve such a problem?

Examples such as Logorama by H5/François Alaux, Hervé de Crécy and Ludovic Houplain & Kapitaal by Studio Smack both note the problems that the terrorising messages become meaningless as a moral through a visual narrative. On the other hand, Deleting Space by Christopher Steinbrener and Rainer Dempf’s outdoor methods of erasing brands on the high street created an impact through the erasure of noise, the response from the audience were clear. But the underlying point is that those examples do not suggest what can be done to avoid the meaningless messages as a whole.

While this key insight serves more direction towards the outcome, it has brought another insight that in fact, the essence of this project is about raising awareness about something that is already known to everyone; raising awareness about something familiar. As it is an analogy to state that rather than making a point by proving that the problem with media is constantly pointing out the negativities within society to provide the shock value for its audience, as Gerbner (as cited from Seward Barry, p.306) states

Under the umbrella theory of "cultivation process" Gerbner has traced how "mean world syndrome" can come about when, with the repeated exposure to negative messages, people can become convinced that the world they live in is an inherently dangerous and primarily mean one...when people believe what they see and what they see is a world enmeshed in violence, they expect violence to happen to them...and inadvertently actualize what they fear – all without understanding how the process has worked or the actual reality behind the fears.

This draws insight that I had raised towards the beginning of my Major Project on the exposure of negative media, but there are not as many suggestions as to how to improve their negative findings.
   
So how would I be able to raise awareness about something that is already known to the audience?

Had a think (not necessarily in a dark room though, as my tutor had suggested) over the output, a web interface with a type of humourous and engaging shock for the audience; the stats and facts will connect with the different scenarios that will be asked, with metaphoric titles such as "Rise and shine" – asking the audience what they do when they first get up; some may go to the bathroom, some may use their phone to check their social networking sites / emails etc., or their daily commute, with small analogies such as "we spend x time watching/seeing ads about health/fitness products that would equate to x amount of hours spent at the gym". The important message behind this site to be engaging and informative. Thusly, creating the creative co-ordinates of
   

• engaging
• informative
• which directs contemporary.

The tone of voice which directs the site still requires work, as there may be multiple dynamics that I am adding as a result of utilising both analogies and metaphors within the language; the interpretations of them would be different for all.

Importantly, the outcome brings learning about brand exposure to a more informational extent by using such analogies, and it can help at the end of the interactive survey by offering suggestions on purchasing (such as making search terms more direct, and to spread the news of awareness on this site), creating the link from my key point, to offer positives in light of the negative discovery. Whether or not it would create the realisation that branding is the contemporary method of escapism for the audience is up to the individual.
   
Sketches of the site are being created as I write up; on a 12 column grid to retain the simplicity that would be required to keep in line with the creative co-ordinates. The name of this campaign, or essentially, the brand, has currently been proposed as “Brandology” – literally, meaning the study of branding. (Still subject to change)

For the purpose of online viewing, I have attached Logorama and Kapitaal for your viewing pleasure.

Bibliography
Seward Barry, A (1997) Visual Intelligence: Perception, Image, and Manipulation in Visual Communication. State University of New York: New York.

Video
H5/François Alaux, Hervé de Crécy and Ludovic Houplain (2009) Logorama [video online] Available at:

<>

[Accessed 10 May 2011]

Studio Smack (2006) Kapitaal [video online] Available at:

<>

[Accessed 4 October 2011]

Website
http://www.steinbrener-dempf.com/index.php?article_id=5 [Accessed 1 October 2011]

“Simmering content – rich in variety and riddled with idiosyncrasies – is obscured by the catchy one-liner coined by brand consultants…isn’t it better not to bother with the subject matter of an event at all when promoting it? Instead why not just chant the values of the organisation that it brings to people? Surely we all engage with a subject because we are familiar and trusting of the organisation that brings it to us?...why bother referring to content at all when people respond much better to the branded message?” (Bell, 2004, p.23-4)

Metaphors, metaphors, metaphors…

Under the advice of a fellow student, I read Nick Bell’s article in the Eye Magazine titled The Steam Roller of Branding, and it was insightful to revisit such an article that points out that “some corporate identities exist in spite of what a company or organisation produces, and in direct contradiction to the way it behaves.” (2004, p.20) Metaphorically speaking, branding is a brand in itself, does it not contradict itself in a way? It anticipates our basic and spiritualistic needs and sells ideas, encouraging affiliation through their products by highlighting aspirations through familiar metaphors

I presented my ideas in the Final Project Presentations yesterday, and the feedback was sound; the tutors and fellow peers alike provided questions to ponder on this weekend which I had otherwise omitted during the thinking for the output; one particular question which was raised by a fellow student did make me realise how immersed into this project I was, almost to the point of not remembering the other campaigns that already exist under the sea of brands and branding: “If you are creating something through all the clutter, how do you get people to notice it?”

It’s getting closer to the time where the outcome has to be finalised and get on with the report writing, I feel less prepared than ever, but have certainly gained more of an understanding of the psychology behind branding and its effects on consumers; the use of familiar metaphors relevant to our time through a narrative, like fairytales, provide a sense of affiliation between ourselves and the overall brand itself through their products. It is like a medicine that can cure our needs, that have long been merged with our inner-spiritualistic desires in this materialistic world.

This is a real-world form of escapism, where brands utilise their products and the market to provide this escape from the realistic thoughts, to be lost within their metaphors that makes you become affiliated to it, through a  visual narrative. Over time, as consumers become susceptible to this method of escapism, the psychological high that one can get from purchasing could be explained like the following:

1. Consumers use brand (Use)
2. Consumers become dependent (Abuse)
3. Consumers begin to depend on it (Dependency)
4. Consumers purchase more as they become more susceptible (Increased Dosage)

Of course that is the most superficial description on how it works; if I was to expand on it, and providing it with more materialistic context:

1. Consumers use brands (Use);
2. Consumer becomes increasingly dependent on it; more has to be purchased in order to refill that intensity and psychological high (Abuse and dependency);
3. Over time, consumers become bored of the brand (Susceptibility) and seeks elsewhere for an alternative high;
4. Brand itself lose their consumers and creates new products, providing an external set of metaphors that will ensure they are newer, better, stronger and importantly, fresher than before for the consumer (Disillusionment);
5. Consumers learn of new brand, and returns to previous brand (Relief control); other brand amends their image;
6. Repeat cycle.

From that analogy above, if that context was placed within the context of brand terrorism, then consumers would be so spoilt for choice, causing more purchasing and more hoarding of brands; it’s no wonder that compulsive consumers exist!

In between the hoarding, what would happen if I add the metaphor of a placebo effect?
Would the cycle be broken?

With time issues, there is not much space left to research further into the relationship between branding and how it presents metaphorically as a medicine for consumers, but can I utilise that metaphor to create an outcome? More importantly, as questioned during the presentation:
How does it affect individuals?
What do you want the audience to take out from this outcome?
How do you raise awareness of your stance as a result of your research from the outcome?

One soldiers on.

Bibliography
Bell, N (2004) The Steam-Roller Of Branding. Eye Magazine. 14 (53), 18-28.

There has been a bit of restructuring of my research, helping me to organise my thoughts and development; branding a conceptual idea such as materialism would only provide a form that can be so fluid and more must be interpreted within it to reach the outcome. It is also helpful as it helps me create a running order for the imminent Major Project Presentation next week. The idea of negativity and positivity still sits well in my mind, but would I be able to make a change by utilising the psychological research that I have found and focus on consumerism as the one aspect of society? How would I be able to utilise today’s brand terrorism, i.e. the bombardment of brands so that we are never too far away from them, or any other brands, to promote something positive?
   
Going through the research that I have done for the past few months has made me realise very much that I was better defining my boundaries within my research; children specifically as a target audience was not relevant in my interests, but rather the concepts that are inherent in children’s fairytales. The adult consumer is nowadays stuck in fictional narratives that are influenced by the concepts of fantasy within branding.
   
The power of brands is by no means weak; the ability of being able to provide a narrative that merges between the fantastical and the real is beginning to morph social norms of understanding the difference between spiritualistic desires (such as freedom, love, health) with materialistic needs; brand narrative aims to offer the fulfilment of spiritualistic desires by purchasing their product of a materialistic nature; the didactic nature that used to be carried by fairytales, however, was not brought along with the creation of branding. The difference between good and bad within the climate of branding is nowadays, so blurred to the point where, its consequences as it morphed social norms has changed our own ideals, as shown with the climatic example of the London Riots.
   
It is on the realisation based on this quote by Dieter Rams:

The value, and especially the legitimisation of design will be, in the future, measured more in terms of how it can enable us to survive…on this planet.

   
The in depth research of anything and everything about psychological behaviours when exposed to brands has almost made me forget that the brand itself does not have to be about a logo marque, as I began exploring the outcome possibilities. This project output is rather about the expression of a concept that makes the statistics, or research that I found, fresh for the reader.
   
From all the gathered research, my research question now stands at:
   
Is it possible to utilise brand terrorism to encourage good?
   
Under this research question, the outcome direction will utilise the psychological effects and impact that I have discovered between brands and the consumer to address the social issue of brand terrorism through metaphors as found throughout my research.

Getting back all the responses from interviews now, results show that product placement does not appear to play a role in impacting the interviewee’s lives; the amount of time they spend on the computer and internet browsing overshadows both television viewing and watching movies, yet more than 60% of the surveys returned can recall brands from shows they have watched, so is it an unconscious understanding that the brands have already infiltrated their minds? Or is it as Martin Lindstrom describes smokers' choices when undertaking his survey (Lindstrom, 2009, p.15)

It wasn't that our volunteers felt ashamed about what smoking was doing to their bodies; they felt guilty that the labels' stimulated their brains' craving areas. It was just that their conscious mind couldn't tell the difference.

Gathering main discoveries from each week’s progress report:

• Brands need to know their audience before selecting airtime in the case of product placement; consumers themselves must also play a part, as they need to know or have minimal knowledge of products available in the market first. For children, brands have to understand both the children (their main audience), and their parents (the power of purchase). More than 75% of the UK audience were not aware of the meaning of the ‘P’ marque; the notice for product placement that is shown before programmes that have endorsed brands embedded in them.
• If campaigns are strong enough to create an impact in one’s long-term memory, the idea of the campaign will eventually become a brand. From this, it can be said that anything can be considered as a brand nowadays; products, companies, people, even metaphors and gestures. Gestures such as the ‘thumbs up’, ‘thumbs down’, ‘OK’, the Crucifix and their behaviours as a result of the usage are well-known internationally, can we therefore brand with gestures due to the known significance of them?

• As a follow up from the discussion with Eugenie in the last tutorial, can negative branding therefore be made positive by increasing the seductiveness of them? The seductiveness of eating healthily and living well, can it be made better?

• How do children, whose minds are developing, differentiate between positive and negatives before knowing the difference between right and wrong? We implant ideas into our minds with the increasing types of media that we are exposed to – books, newspapers, television, movies. These types of media are created through someone’s ideas brought to life visually or in literary senses. In both cases, both ideas are implanted into people’s minds by adding visuals effects, and in literary ways, the extensive use of descriptive words.

• Product placement, very much like advertising, is an adult invention, perhaps something which may be too advanced for children. As a result, a new materialistic culture has been produced as a result of the adult concept of product placement and advertising; the increase in commercialisation of childhood has dynamically changed the development of children.

• The notions of childhood have very much changed since the days of fairytales and fables, where it was the platform for understanding moral values and notions; the modern rendition of fairytales takes place in forms of magical worlds (i.e. Harry Potter series, or Ben 10 etc.) where there is a merging between the fantastical and of the real, but more dangerously, these are not ideals of teaching moral values and notions, but rather a franchise to increase commodity. This shows the major extent of how brands have infiltrated our minds without much control and from the brands' point of view, it is about providing the children values of a different kind.

• So has brands, become the modern adulthood to the modern childhood? As substantiated from previous research, parents have decreasing importance in guiding children's development; from Nicholas Ind's Living The Brand (2004, p.32-3) He explains the notion of modern-day society using the Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

we work because we have basic needs of safety and security...there is a real fear of not being able to afford the necessities of life...Maslow, with his belief in humanistic psychology, recognized that, although people do have basic needs, they also have social needs, and needs for esteem and self-actualization...they do want to be recognized by others for their worth and they do want a sense of fulfilment.

• Our generation is a generation that is the advertised, as well as the advertiser. Branding has become the dictator to children, to childhood.

I have begun to realise that the points I have made not only emphasises on the modern ideals of children is to become older than they are; to be seen to be older and more mature than their peers  – brands exploit this notion to implant themselves into the unconscious and morph social norms.
In product placement's case, where it can be defined into several stages, or phases of embedding into children’s minds in a sentient manner to become part of the children themselves. As a result, the connection between the child and the consequence of their perception of the world from an overexposure of brands has been initiated.

The adult’s dream of childhood can be traced in the history of the fairy tale.  For the most part, we assume fairy tales are stories for children that perhaps we engage in as adults only as a form of nostalgia. We understand the fairy tale as a staple of the child’s world, a world of fantasy left behind with the maturity that comes with adulthood; fables provide a more realistic point of view by providing a moral of the story, which would make it more apt if I were to concentrate on just fables, rather than fairytales as well.

How can I present this concept and push it as the outcome?

From my research and experimentation, what is the problem?
Branding has become such an integral part of society that childhood and their development of values and morals have been jeopardised; childhood has now simply become a period of time where brands exploit by infiltrating their developing values, rendering their lifestyle increasingly materialistic.
The social implications of such an impact would mean that this Generation X, or more recently called the Generation M^2 (meaning MultiMedia) would be working to live in order to satisfy their materialistic desires; as morals and spiritual values become decadent. The loss of innocence, along with the childhood, tender mothering and care that is supposed to accompany innocence by parents has been gradually handed over quietly to the technological gadgets and their branded siblings. Children growing up too fast these days prefer to spend time with their gadgets than their parents, who on average spend only 82 minutes with their children each day.

How has branding therefore, impacted childhood?

The main issue that I discovered that has been hounding the ideology of childhood is that the modern-day child is becoming increasingly obsessive about consumption, this can be interpreted in different ways; whether in food or other products, we are becoming increasingly materialistic in our values, and the age of desiring and obtaining materialistic luxuries are getting younger. Why? Advertising.  The stressful lifestyle that the majority face in this metropolis are beginning to show strains and their children are also noticing too; reports show that parents spend on average only 82 minutes of their day with their child. Where has the time normally spent with children gone? Adults begin to go through the routine of wake up, eat sleep and work, and less time is being spent with children; bills to pay, mouths to feed. The sense of stability of a secure job with secure pay, as compared to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, combining this with the strategic methods of advertising and the overload of information everywhere, there seems to nowhere to hide, and children are being brought up in an environment where advertising is the norm that one probably gets exposed to more than their homework or more time spent with advertising than their own parents. 
   

How am I going to solve it or raise questions that may help deal with the problem?

I initially proposed a visual journey of the gradual overtaking of brands within our sights, using fairytales as the starting point, where morals and values are taught through storytelling, much like brands. Using snapshots from fairytales, a vernacular of childhood innocence, with a twist into their context with brands can aid in raising awareness of the impact of brands have in our lives and the gradual loss of innocence that childhood as a concept was supposed to attach to. By placing brands in such a  context, it shows that brands have embedded themselves into everyday language, enough to create stories out of them.

It is creating visuals that help raise awareness of the increasing amount of advertising, hence dealing with the problem from the roots, rather than providing a solution itself. A solution cannot be created in the scale that is required of the vast industry.

The feedback from the seminar held today (15/9) was not particularly sound; the ideas presented on negativity were given the most praise, but the outcome proposed did not support the rest of the research involved. It has been advised to focus on one societal aspect and focus the rest of the development, although the focus has been based on the collision between the increasing development of materialistic values over the spiritual from the beginning…

In retrospect, since the research that I have been conducting all along has been about materialism, it is therefore only justifiable that I can brand materialism as a concept – the justification of creating such a brand would be to increase the awareness of brand terrorism that faces us everyday, to the point where we are not allowed to choose a branded product over another due to the monopolies that particular company has purchased, and we, ourselves, become the advertiser; a walking billboard. It is merely the path of research that I undertook which took me to this point in a different way, but it will also be the research direction which I undertook which should wield interesting results.

The target audience has very much changed from the beginning of the project; instead of focusing on modern-day children, the audience, in itself, has also grown up, and now concentrating on those that do not believe that they have been impacted by brands, as described at the beginning of this report.
    
The main question now is: How does the research there fit into the research question, and produce an outcome showcasing critical reflection on the project?
 

Bibliography
Ind, N. (2004) Living The Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a Brand Champion. Kogan Page: London
Lindstrom, M. (2009) Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. Random House: London

ad continuum So does product placement become the modern adulthood to the modern childhood?
     
Wording for the keywords have been changed to gain a better understanding with fewer (or more) words:
   
Product placement is a form of advertising that embeds brands into forms of media; it implants ideas that provides an emotional platform between the brand and the consumer.
   
Branding targets the psychosocial implications, expressive, terminal，as well as social values, in order to create the ultimate brand loyalty between itself and the consumer.
   
Childhood is a period where cognitive, physical, social and emotional capacities are being developed, and product placement have increasingly exploited such to deliver brands and manipulate their perceptions.
   
Branding is a multi-faceted aspect within the world of design, and from the experimentation and research that I’ve been conducting in the recent weeks, it is about an implementation of an idea, particularly within the world of product placement. I can now relate my current progress back to my original research question: “Whether product placement can have a positive brand exposure towards children”, but rather, to put it simply, it is questioning “whether product placement can implement a positive idea towards children”
This opportunity has opened my eyes to experience unique perspectives on the city; the small moments we don't always pay too much attention to in the chaos that is the bombardment of brands.
   
When I was calculating the brand index scores of the brands that children aged 8-12 (this phase is also known as ‘tweens’) from data that I had gathered, I found some surprising results; even though we live in an increasingly digital world, where more things are done on the internet, from the findings from the brand index scores, tweens are actually the most influenced by sweets and chocolate, followed by electronic gadgets, rather than websites, or TV shows. From this piece of discovery, however, it has to be considered where the source of influence, as well as the content of the influence.

From the brand index data, I started compiling the colour wheel of brands that my target audience associate themselves with, I have realised that more and more are red, or yellow mostly; the colour psychologies of yellow and red combines the attention seeking energy of red with the happiness and optimistic yellow; McDonald’s is the perfect example that combines these two colours – the promise of a ‘good time’, with the excitement and movement and palpitations that it induces by attractive their customers with their insignia is surely a win. A more recent gradual decline of the use of red favour of adopting a more natural tone to their overall tone probably inclines with the quiet background murmurs of ethics within the fast food industry.
   
Whilst compiling the colour wheel, there were moments where I had to pause and reconsider which part of the colour spectrum the logo itself belonged to, as the colour of some brands, where their packaging colour is intact throughout their range, was also considered.
   
I finally began some primary research onto my surroundings; finding product placements, implanting of ideas that encompassed me left, right and centre.  Watching media that was perhaps, a little too naïve for yours truly, but the more I look into this subject, the more I become hooked into it, it is almost like as if all of these brands have amassed into a giant narrative within play, and has become a dictation towards me rather than an influence. This reminded me of a conversation that I had with an Accountant-cum-Politics-graduate, whom had a anecdote to share:

I was watching television with my cousin once, and the age difference is rather large – 10 years apart, so naturally, and watching his, his type of programmes on television…God, I couldn’t even handle the break in between the shows; the products that are associated with the cartoon is played to entice the viewer. Jeez, that gave me a headache.

What she said reminded me of Steve Jobs's saying (Mitchell, 2011)

"When you’re young, you look at television and think - There’s a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that’s not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That’s a far more depressing thought."

— Steve Jobs

Our generation is a generation that is the advertised, as well as the advertiser; branding has become the dictator to children, to childhood.

Bibliography

http://blog.sirmitchell.com/

This week, I managed to also get in touch with members of mumsnet, the online community for parents, by parents; Sharna Jackson of Tate Kids, as well as some raw data on the public’s acknowledgement of product placement from OFCOM, all of which will add great data towards my research. The main problem that I have been experiencing with this subject is that, due to the nature of this subject, and the fact that this is still relatively new, it is hard to gather raw data to create visualisations to show the flow of process.
   
Definitions of the three main keywords/phrases so far as gathered from my research:
   
Product placement is about implanting an idea of purchasing purposes within media; a communication tool that is integrated into the media
Branding is about providing the terminal values for the consumer to build the ultimate brand loyalty relationship between themselves and the brand
Childhood is a period their mentalities are still in development, and therefore should be a period where any form of communication exposed to them should allow to continue to grow; the idea of childhood nowadays is more about consumption and consumerism rather than a process of developing their own identities; their own brand.
   
Carrying on from the previous week on fairytales and fables; the main objective of these stories was to provide a sense of morals for the reader, and to allow them to develop a sense of morals on their own accord. Fairytales and fables are not much different from branding, where both stem from the idea of storytelling, and to create a relationship between the narrative and the reader themselves; to create an emotional link, and to allow the children to relate themselves to the appropriate characters.
   
We, as designers/creative thinkers/design philosophers/all of the above, have objectives, one of those perhaps, is to improve society with future changing concepts, wanting to add some meaning to the society. These life-changing decisions? They are adult concepts. They were influenced by what we were exposed to ourselves, or other ideas. So can it be said that ideas are also adult concepts? If so, how about starting from where we began ourselves? Childhood. 
   
As previously said, childhood nowadays has become a term that is associated with materialistic values, where children grow up surrounded by brands, and are branded themselves, this categorising by sub-culture creates an tidal wave effect of wanting to seek out the latest gadgetry to fit within their evocative values that the children themselves want to see themselves become associated with.
   
By influencing perceptions from a young age, we can change the future from the beginning.  An idea of influencing perceptions is where this final major project was stemmed from; the recent lift of the product placement ban to its essentials, is about the placement of ideas or a concept. On the discovery that children are becoming increasingly obsessive about consumption, this can be interpreted in different ways; whether in food or other products, we are becoming increasingly materialistic in our values, and the age of desiring and obtaining materialistic luxuries are getting younger. Why? One thing is clear; advertising. 
   
Advertising’s role in brands are important in their own right, as advertising becomes the first point of contact in establishing a link between the consumer and the brand itself. How about the products that are targeted towards children? The juxtaposition of promoting a product for children with an advertising campaign that is an adult concept, what effect would this have on children psychologically?
   
The stressful lifestyle that the majority face in this metropolis are beginning to show strains and their children are also noticing too, as the gradual increase of both parents having a full-time job, the amount of time that can be devoted to their children has decreased significantly; “working mothers in Britain spend just 81 minutes each day looking after their children – including mealtimes.” (Donnelly, 2011)
The parents’ role to their children are supposed to be setting an example on growing up and providing a positive mental attitude towards their developing, but as adults begin to go through the routine of wake up, eat sleep and work, and less time is being spent with children; bills to pay, mouths to feed, their children will also begin to be exposed to the routine of becoming slaves to the clock.

Upon reading more on the origins of fairytales, and its psychologies, it provided the most wonderful insight that very much links my research on how ideas and implanted in the first place, with the impacts and function of branding. This is a crucial turning point within the project, as this is about gaining an understanding of the metaphors that became idealised, or branded, and its utilisation of them in today’s society within many contexts.

Combining this with the strategic methods of advertising, particularly, product placement and the overload of information everywhere; on billboards, television, on the internet, that even we, ourselves, as young adults, are being influenced, sometimes unconsciously in light of product placement, where this project began. There seems to be nowhere to hide, and we are being brought up in an environment where advertising is the norm that one probably gets exposed to more than their homework or more time spent with advertising than their own parents; branding is no longer child's play, but  rather, a materialistic maturity for the growing youth in the way that this can be classified coined as a brand terrorism; where brands bombard so much that they dictate our own lifestyle and we inherently lose our freedom of choice.
   
So has branding become the modern adulthood to the modern childhood?

   
Bibliography
Donnelly, L. (2011) Working mothers send 81 minutes a day looking after their children The Guardian [ONLINE] Available at: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8408503/Working-mothers-spend-81-minut...> [Accessed 22 August, 2011]

Interview questions have been sent to designers and professors, one of whom has replied with a little feedback on the questions -  current insight on the questions sent are that there are good questions, but some others are perhaps too general for him to answer them succinctly in words. So before next week, the questions can be looked at again and filter them down to keywords to construct questions that will offer succinct and precise answers which will help towards visually developing on the project. The skype interview is very much looked forward to, as it would be better for the interviewee to express themselves verbally, nevertheless, we are due for a skype interview next week.

For the past 2 weeks, I have gathered newspapers to demonstrate media’s emphasis on negativity rather than the positive to round up the questioning of experiences brands can offer from both negative and positive experiences; out of the articles from Evening Standard that were collected, 4 out of 5 articles on average of each spread emphasised on negativity, based on the rhetoric and the content of the article. What does this mean for us readers? Do we succumb to the fearful society that media and police sirens (that are, coincidentally, passing by right now) that it is a ‘big, bad world’ out there?

In light of the London riots, the media has provided us, the audience, with footage and news coverage that looters during the London Riots were as young as 10, whom were also being arrested. This sparked the debate on how the development of children today were being affected as a result of different aspects of society. But for the sake of my project, I am focussing on the impact of children’s development through advertising, media and communications.

What about children? The majority of children do not read newspapers; that, too, is a rather adult concept of being able to keep in touch with the world’s current affairs. How do children grow into us, young adults, adults etc. whilst developing negativity in their mental capacity during development?

There was an excellent snippet on BBC Radio 4 (2011) which the presenter commented on that

Children are deemed to be innocent and asexual, but the necessity to conform to the society, and also research into contemporary childhood shows the move towards a sexualised society…Online space, virtual space has now become a social, and also, sexual space for children.

Returning to the main design problem of product placement; it was lifted earlier this year in February, albeit children’s programmes are still restricted with such placement. This is a loophole within product placements’ legislation as children’s viewing choices are not limited to just children’s channels unless their parents impose strict rules in their households. Can brands therefore take hold of children’s values before their basic morals and etiquette is fully developed?

Both analytical and propositional visual research are being implemented as a response to the research progress; I have begun to re-evaluate the design objectives for this final major project; and the few questions which I had began asking are as follows:

• Can people improve lifestyles with the aid of branding?
• Can negative and positive experiences for children be branded?
• How were the ideas implanted into a child's mind in the first place?
• Can positive aspects help children improve by making them attractive?
• Can I brand the ideals of childhood?

Morals have typically been more obvious in children's literature, sometimes even being introduced with the phrase: "The moral of the story is …". Such explicit techniques have grown increasingly out of fashion in modern storytelling, and are now usually only included for ironic purposes. [wikipedia]

I became particularly intrigued by the last question which had come up throughout my research, media’s heavy influence on childhood has caused children to become increasingly materialistic in terms of their values, valuing brands and luxury goods over basic morals and ethics that are normally taught from fables and fairytales, such as not judging a book by its cover, or rather aptly, vices are their own punishment; the notions of childhood have very much changed since the days of fairytales and fables.

Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral

Midnight News. (2011). BBC Radio 4. Sunday 14th August

From 28th July:

Why do we have to keep explaining everything to death? A need to justify and contextualise design is increasingly letting daylight in on magic and typically makes the design in question look less, rather than, more impressive. Propping up design with explanation suggests it cannot speak for itself, that there is a ‘trick’ being played. The best design simply ‘is’. But the PR industry just won’t or can’t stop. [Amos, 2011]

The juxtaposition of positivity and negativity can be reduced to the most simple marks known: + and -. They are very simple, and minimal visually, but their context is vast in many different aspects – take, for example, a juxtaposition of colour – cultures signify black and white in different ways; black is the default colour for a traditional funeral in the Western society, whereas Eastern cultures are usually white. Black, in English history, represented dignity, respect and of spiritual reflection; Queen Victoria wore black for the majority of her reign to mourn for the loss of her beloved husband Prince Albert.

Who is to know whether culture of bad and evilness, who knows that black = evil? Or white = evil? Death = black in british culture, and white in Chinese culture – why is Chinese culture white? Or rather more specifically, who was to discover the meaning of ‘bad’, and ‘evil’, differentiating between ‘good’ in the first place? In a religious sense, it would be the Bible.

The Bible, essentially, is an archaic storybook that tells the life of Christ throughout the centuries, passed down by many different generations, told to children and adults alike, making it accessible for all ages to understand (and perhaps embrace) religion. In Elizabeth Tucker’s report The Dramatization of Children’s Narratives, Tucker explains that  (1980, p.184)

Most stories are told in the single dimension of the human voice. Through the young narrator’s blending of traditional and creative elements, the story gradually unfolds and comes to life for its listeners.

The modern-day influence of narrative is no different, with copywriters, marketers and advertisers loitering around the sweet and innocent vocabulary, we are influenced everyday to buy their products by being dictated to with the product, and combined with our increasingly materialistic culture,  our associations between the brands and ourselves (how we will be portrayed if we used this brand), we are sold.

Summary of findings and questions so far before the Summer Break:

• Product placement is an adult invention, perhaps something which may be too advanced for children, whom are still developing mentally
• A  new materialistic culture has been produced as a result of the adult concept of product placement and advertising; the increase in commercialisation of childhood has dynamically changed the development of children
• How is an idea implanted into a child's mind? Can be begin to implant brands as necessities, as the power of choice is beginning to develop in childrens’ minds?
• Can negative/positive experiences for children be branded?
• What is the difference between the media ‘idea’ and the cultural ‘idea’. Is an idea therefore, the driving force for all communications? If so, what drives the idea?

Bibliography
Amos, S. (2011) jkr: Design Gazette [online] <available at:http://www.jkr.co.uk/design-gazette/2012-olympic-medals-silver-for-design-a-bronze-for-pr-speak/> [accessed 27 July]
Tucker, E. (1980) The Dramatization of Children’s Narratives. [Online] Western Folklore, Vol. 39, No. 3, Children’s Folklore pp. 184-197 <available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1499800> [accessed 16 July]

From July 21 –

Visual experiments began with erasure of logos and branded products within media; tests were done with one of the most well-known films of all time with a plethora of product placements; Home Alone. But have since managed to catch a fever during this Summer season, so may be out of action for the next couple of days, but since I became ill two days ago, I gave myself some time to processing and organising some thoughts in my head rather than worrying about what to put on paper.

As previously mentioned, the meaning of placement is essentially the placement of an idea, the idea of what is or what can be implanted into your mind, whether subconsciously or not whilst being exposed to a piece of media. In children’s terms, their minds are still in development and therefore more susceptible to different brand exposures, how do ideas become implanted into a child’s mind? How do children differentiate between positive and negatives before knowing the difference between right and wrong?

Brands ‘exists only in the memory of people…is a sign of recognition…and evokes associations in people’ (Franzen and Bouwman, 2001, p.xvii) We implant ideas into our minds with the increasing types of media that we are exposed to – books, newspapers, television, movies. These types of media are created through someone’s ideas brought to life visually or in literary senses. In both cases, both ideas are implanted into people’s minds by adding visuals effects, and in literary ways, the extensive use of descriptive words.

When talking to others about the project, I do not mention the project itself, but rather implant the idea of the project to them, which provides some great insight on implanting an idea in itself. An idea can take the form of anything from a small part in conversation to a whole topic about the everyday, even the concept of a conversation was an idea in beginning a method of communication between common species from the early ages; all ideas require knowledge of some sort to begin with. A flowchart was created to show the process of the placement of ideas, from this flowchart, I realised that I had separated the idea of media and culture into two, but why? This questioned my understanding of the true meaning of an idea; the difference between the media ‘idea’ and the cultural ‘idea’ is simply the medium or method of communication. Then is an idea therefore, the driving force for all communications? If so, what drives the idea?

The driving force for the mental development towards idea generation returns to childhood. More research, and perhaps, an interview with a language psychologist on mental development and the development of words, or, more broadly, communication.

Bibliography   

Franzen, G and Bouwman, M. (2001) The Mental World of Brands: Mind, memory and brand success. Cromwell Press: Great Britain

From July 14 –

Meetings with experts or educators have not been set up yet, as there have not been sufficient visual experimentations as yet to progress into finding the right questions to ask experts if such meetings were to take place. An alternative method of collecting data would be to make use of the followers on Twitter, and send out survey questions through to some followers that are within the design industry, this way, I can still have room to improve the structuring of the questions when it comes to the time when I interview experts face-to-face.

I find this situation rather dire, as I am having trouble understanding how to represent research visually, almost reliving the days of studying visual theories, where it is the idea that takes precedence over the final outcome, yet we are told many different things; consider the outcome later, start thinking about the outcome now. So who are we supposed to listen to if so many opinions collide with each other?

The collision of understanding the superfluous world of design nowadays, with the fluidity of the concept of branding is becoming increasingly difficult by day, and I feel I haven’t learnt anything, but rather becoming more confused.

Perhaps becoming confused is part of this course, I haven’t yet managed to talk to a person on this course that is not confused about at least one thing on the structure of the course. Being negative sometimes perhaps, is part of our human nature; to be negative about a certain aspect can increase the attractiveness of other aspects in life, such as finding a job now rather than waiting to graduate, for example. The majority of the world’s population is negative once in awhile, if not, most of the time, with the increasing stresses of metropolitan life, and from this, negativity can also be considered as a brand – we become associated with it in every single aspect of life, and embrace negativity even though it is something that we try to avoid; it is in our human nature to be negative at times.

What of the juxtaposition of negatives, is there a scale of positivity and negativity? Is there a difference between a negativity such as bad substances in a soda drink for children, than negativity such as bad pollution that is harmful to the environment? Is there a visual response to how the level of negativity can be scaled?

As a follow up from the discussion with Eugenie in the last tutorial, can negative branding therefore be made positive by increasing the seductiveness of them? The seductiveness of eating healthily and living well, can it be made better? Positivity is something that can make you feel safe, provide comfort, and improve our happiness by knowing something familiar. On the other hand, negativity can be known as the ‘big, bad world’ or simply the unknown – we have always accepted as fact that there is more of the unknown to us than the known knowledge.

When this is applied to branding, consumers feel safer if we are using the brands we are familiar with – there is therefore an abundance of negativity compared to the polar opposite due to the unknown amount of unknown information that we have yet to discover.