More thoughts on Logorama

by jeffhilimire on July 2, 2010

I wrote a little while back about Logorama. If you haven’t watched it yet, you can see it for free here. I then hosted a lunch club meeting in the DIG area in Atlanta last week and showed the movie. We had a great discussion with the 20 or so folks that attended, and after wards I asked if a few people wanted to put their thoughts down for my blog. Below are the 3 brave souls that were willing to lend their thoughts…

================= written by Chessy =================

Should this summary amount to a fail whale, I begin with apologies. Forgive me, I’ve all but forgotten how to stretch thoughts beyond 140 characters. Yep; tattoo the “t”…right here. Call it a trademark, technology’s scarlet letter.

Yet, when I think about it closely, the concept is not so unreal; we consciously label ourselves with brand decisions every single day. Beginning with association, it ends in surreal selection; “follow me,” if you will.

First “Middle East” equates to oil, and “Cuba,” rolled cigars. It all seems natural, or instinctive enough, but then the connections abstract. In time, the Caterpillars morph into tractors, and Caribous serve our coffee. Nothing is what it would seem anymore; we learn to function in metaphor.

From brand identity to identity’s brand, where is this line we’ve crossed?
Logorama, pointing the obvious, illustrates ubiquitous media. As marketing ads entrance the masses, approval breeds Stepford structure. Too soon, the “cultured” lens depends on cross-referenced recognition – I see your North Face…now you’ve been labeled. Is *this* what you had in mind?!?

In turn, we agencies evolve, ourselves; “blind cheetahs” chasing prey. As competition increases stride, we trail the failed endeavors. Assuming eyes are opened wide, we close our own and run. Gimmicks, clichés – whatever it takes, as long as we get to you first. We’ll push our product lightning fast, ad carnage left in wake. We want so badly to trigger “like buttons” that we lose sight of the goal. We forget to recognize…you.

In truth, we’ve not just lost our vision; we’ve blinded consumers, as well. How often do *you* overlook the thing you try to find?

Any idea that gains momentum will soon become commonplace. Yet with “iDentity,” seamlessly tethered to branding, we all jump strategy’s train. We tag ourselves with things we buy, selecting to associate. Losing ourselves in self-assembly, with time we wander – focused on our distractions.

So what’s the solution to Logorama’s glazed commodity?
We have to ask why consumers align with logos instead of words. The answer is media. Pervasive. Present. Use it carefully.

We’d do well to remember consumers = Consumer(s), individually. Small details can shape the difference, distinguishing “you” from “me.” Armed with an image, we’re all too familiar, even before we meet. Our groups are drawn and typed in silence, and our faults are lined in excess.

Although we brand ourselves, ourselves, we still want to feel unique; by channeling brand through identity, we can facet ourselves distinct. Choose to follow your User’s path; they’ll bring you along for the ride.

In short, sit back to lure them in; with nuance, speak few words. Just foster suggestion with subtle connections, and watch your consumer…consume.

================= written by @saywha =================

Jeremy: We’re at a dangerous intersection between what we need as consumers and what is being supplied from brands as items of necessity.
And we’ve bought in to this “brand world necessity” whole hog and have traded our freedom of choice, individuality, and expressiveness for the same and predictable. Sure my latte from Starbucks is always the same temperature, same ingredients, and tastes the same even if it’s made on the corner store in San Francisco or the drive-thru Starbucks in Alabama. But for a second imagine a world without logos, imagine the highway landscape, and soon you’ll see what we’ve truly sacrificed. This film is scathing critique on what we’ve sacrificed.

================= written by Ben =================

Another person: Many meanings can be drawn from the short film Logorama but I believe that the main purpose is to present a satiric commentary about how our modern society is being over taken by consumerism. This topic has been debated and discussed even before Professor Thorstein Veblen of the University of Chicago published his book The Theory of the Leisure Class. This, along with other books of the Simple Living movement such as Affluenza, discusses the dangers of a society based on gaining items that have no worth when considered on the scale of true life.

The film directly conveys the loss of all markers distinction except for corporate identities. The object becomes the brand, the place becomes the company, and even the people become the mascots. This is this ultimate end of consumerism and this film is challenging us to make a change now to reverse the cycle. We consume, which makes the companies money, which is spent learning how to market more effectively so that we buy more. This process has already begun. When we hear the word apple, many think of the company before the fruit. Many even identify themselves as a “Mac” or “PC” and Apple© is keen to push this image in their commercials.

In the end of the film society, literally the world in the film, cannot sustain this system. The human spirit naturally causes a back lash that is here embodied by an earthquake that removes the catalyst of the problem, LA (the only place called out in the film). This event powerfully moves the two main characters back to the very beginning. Back to the definition of simple; just two people, in a garden, eating an Apple©.

Previous post:

Next post: