Eco Coke Bottle Design

Here's a bottle design (CLICK IT!) that has garnered an insane amount of attention on Digg as well as the overall blogospheric community:



The design is just a mockup, which means it won't actually go into production, but the fact that it was designed by a freshman student at CCS and has received so much attention thus far, is truly impressive.

It's worth noting however, that even though the way the product and it's features are presented (as well as the typography, photography, and layout involved in the process) is exceptional, the product design itself is not very practical.

There's a very clear reason for the way coke bottles and cans are designed the way they currently are.

I wish I had a link to prove this but I remember learning in my Calculus BC (oO0O0!) class in highschool that typical soda cans in the US are shaped to carry 12 fl oz of beverage with the least amount of aluminum necessary. The reason why cans aren't equal in width and height is because the tops and bottoms of cans are thicker and thus require more aluminum. The same is true about plastic bottles and plastic.

As for square shaped bottles, they would actually require more plastic to carry the same amount of volume as a cylindrical bottle. Here are the equations for the surface areas of rectangular prisms and cylinders if you wanna do the math out yourself.

Also, I don't think a thin rectangular-shaped bottle would be able to handle the stress of the carbonation inside coke, but then again I'm not an engineer (though I was once declared as one) so I wouldn't know. The only bottle I know of that's rectangular shaped is Fiji and last time I checked, that shit ain't carbonated. Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

There's a million other reason out there too, I'm sure, as to why something like this would never go into production and why coke bottles are designed the way they are today (feel free to add your reasons in the comment section) but again, this is just a concept design (and a very good one from an aesthetic point of view) made by a freshman design student - there's no need to be any more of a bottle-design-nazi than I am already being.

Unbranded Branding

As a student studying both Business and Fine Arts with the dream of one day becoming the Creative Director and owner of my own clothing label, one topic that I follow closely is marketing trends within the fashion industry.

One trend that I have noticed over the past couple months is that there has been a small shift towards unbranded branding. To clarify, an item that is unbranded is an item that does not carry a brand or brand name. This is not to be confused with an item that is debranded, which implies that it does not carry any type of brand name, packaging, or material that would otherwise allow someone to identify a brand.

For the purposes of this blog post, I would like to specifically take a closer look at Freshjive’s new line of “logoless” clothing and Urban Outfitters' new line of “unbranded” denim. I will explain what market each line competes in, what each line’s public rationale for going “unbranded”/”logoless” is, and how each line’s public rationale is different from (what I think) is its actual reason(s) for going “unbranded”/”logoless.”

FRESHJIVE

Let’s begin our discussion with Freshjive. Freshjive was founded in 1989 by Rick Klotz as one of the originators of streetwear – a distinctive style of fashion rooted in the underground skateboard scene. Although Freshjive has remained moderately well-known within in the “underground” skateboard and hip-hop community, it has (since its origination) been well-surpassed by other leading streetwear labels such as Supreme and The Hundreds, both of which are similarly priced and styled.

In - what some have called - a bold move, Freshjive announced a few months ago that that they "will no longer be using (their) brand logo or name on any of (their) product, including all labeling and t-shirt designs.”

In an interview with Bobby Hundreds (the co-owner of The Hundreds), Rick Klotz elaborates:

"Throughout the years I’ve become uncomfortable with this business of branding and brand identity. I’m not the type of person that buys something for the brand name. I’ve also never done a very good job at creating a captivating identity to our own brand logo. Also, within the streetwear culture, the promotion of a company’s brand has become downright silly to me. What’s amusing is I still really enjoy designing gear, graphics, and even logos. But when I see kids wearing company logos it reminds of people who are trying to be a part of a “tribe” or “gang”, as if they need to be part of something, which seems to go against the idea of individualism in style."

When asked by Bobby Hundreds what Rick will call his new line, Rick responds:

"Well, let’s be practical. The company is still Freshjive. It’s just that none of our product will have any of our logos or even our name AT ALL. Not even in the labels. And after the turn of the year, no promotional material, nor our website will have any logos. It’s really invigorating to approach designing a line WITHOUT the constrictions of how the logo is gonna be placed or used on the garments."

Throughout the rest of the interview, Rick continues to explain that his move to go “logoless” stems from his disillusionment towards the “world of branding and marketing,” and that he is just “following his heart.” If this is, indeed true, I applaud Rick for making such a bold move and for “following his heart.” Unfortunately, my spidey-senses tell me that there are other reasons, bigger reasons, for why Rick is going “logoless.”

Now, the reason why I keep putting logoless in quotations is because Freshjive isn’t actually going logoless. Surely, that black rectangle with the white stroke around it is still a logo, even if the logo doesn’t have any text in it. If Rick is so against branding and marketing, and intent on getting rid of labels and logos, why is that black box with the white stroke around it on all of his clothing items and on his main website? Peep the pictures below to see what I mean:

The truth is… Rick isn't getting rid of brand logos and labels like he claims – it wouldn’t make sense for him to; he's just changing his old logo and dismissing this change as a punk move to garner support from his punk fan base, and free publicity from the press - all in an attempt to revitalize a brand that has been stagnant for years. Clearly it's working since even the Huffington Post ran a story on it… not bad for an “underground” streetwear label.

Freshjive, of course, is not the only company that has gone “logoless.” Urban Outfitters has used a similar tactic in its latest line of “unbranded” denim, but for different reasons. But before we get to that, let’s start take a brief look at where Urban Outfitters has been and where it is today.

URBAN OUTFITTERS

Urban Outfitters was founded in 1970 as an outlet for hip and funky clothing as well as unique household items. Unlike Freshjive, Urban Outfitters has (since its origination) remained very popular among both hipsters and the general mainstream. Though very differently styled, Urban Outfitters’ closest competitors include Abercrombie and Fitch, and Gap.

In a move that has received a lot of ongoing buzz among several online fashion communities (see here, here, and here), Urban Outfitters released, a few months ago, a new line of “unbranded” raw denim. For those out of the loop, it’s worth understanding what exactly raw denim is and who the major players in the raw denim game are. For those of you who already know and/or don’t care, feel free to skip the next 2 paragraphs.

Raw denim - sometimes referred to as dry denim - is a type of denim fabric that is not treated with any type of wash after being dyed during production. Unlike most denim sold at your local department store, raw denim is sold heavily starched, in a solid indigo color, and with no signs of wear or artificial distress marks. The appeal of raw denim is that it fades with wear to eventually look like a distressed pair of denim; this fading process and the fit and distress marks that result is completely natural and unique to the person who wears the denim. If you're an outsider of raw denim, this may come as a surprise to you but most users of raw denim (including Zac Efron and Kanye West) typically abstain from washing their jeans for 6 or more months to facilitate the fading process.

Urban Outfitters' Unbranded raw denim, specifically, is priced at $78 a piece, making them quite possibly the cheapest pair of selvage raw denim widely available. They are set to compete with Naked & Famous' own line of raw denim, which is similarly priced, and APC's line of raw denim, which is the similarly styled (but cost about $165 a piece).

On its teaser website, Urban Outfitters explains that:

"The Unbranded Brand is jeans with no name, no branding, no washes, no ads, no gimmicks. Just great denim at a great price! Wow, what a concept, only paying for the product itself... crazy, isn’t it?"

Urban Outfitter’s public rationale for going “unbranded” is pretty clear here so I won’t elaborate on it any further.

Now, the reason why I keep putting unbranded in quotations is because Urban Outfitters’ “unbranded” denim - as you might have guessed by now - isn’t actually unbranded. The brand itself is Unbranded. Urban Outfitters, of course, knows this and is calling its line Unbranded as a cheap gimmick to try to convince consumers that all they’re paying for is a high quality product without the associated advertising costs. Similar to Freshjive, Urban Outfitters has placed an unusually big leather patch above the right pocket to make sure that consumers are able to identify that the product is from Urban Outfitters even though it’s supposedly “unbranded.” It’s hard to tell from the pictures below, but the patch is huge in person as is pointed out in almost every single review on the product website.

It’s more than just a cheap gimmick to convince consumers that all they’re paying for is a quality product though. As a raw denim aficionado myself, I’ve actually had a chance to purchase a pair of Urban Outfitters’ Unbranded denim, compare it to it’s closest competitors, as well as do some detective work online. What I’ve found is that Urban Outfitters’ unbranded denim is cut extremely similarly to Naked & Famous’ denim, and styled very closely to APC’s denim (which has minimal branding), but not the same quality as N&F or APC – which is what Urban Outfitters would like you to believe. A little detective work online also revealed to me that Urban Outfitters’ denim is secretly manufactured from the same folks at Naked & Famous. This leads me to my ultimate theory that Urban Outfitter's Unbranded denim line is advertised as a high quality raw denim line, but is actually a lower-quality version of N&F’s raw denim line - stripped of N&F’s branding and priced lower to capture a more price-conscious target market without hurting the Naked & Famous brand name – that is styled to compete against APC (the market leader in raw denim).

Hopefully this post has helped to inform as well as shine some light on the idea of why some brands are going – or at least claiming to go - unbranded. Clearly, I’ve only touched the surface here, but my hope is that next time a brand claims to go “unbranded,” you will more deeply question the motives behind move, rather than just accepting what the brand tells you.

Freshjive Goes Unbranded

While we're still on the topic of Unbranded Brands, I thought it would be interesting to point out another clothing label that has chosen to go "unbranded."


Freshjive, a moderately well-known streetwear label among the hip-hop community, announced a few months ago that they "will no longer be using (their) brand logo or name on any of (their) product, including all labeling and t shirt designs.”

In an interview with The Hundreds, Rick Klotz, the owner and designer of Freshjive, explains:

"Throughout the years I’ve become uncomfortable with this business of branding and brand identity. I’m not the type of person that buys something for the brand name. I’ve also never done a very good job at creating a captivating identity to our own brand logo. Also, within the streetwear culture, the promotion of a company’s brand has become downright silly to me. What’s amusing is I still really enjoy designing gear, graphics, and even logos. But when I see kids wearing company logos it reminds of people who are trying to be a part of a “tribe” or “gang”, as if they need to be part of something, which seems to go against the idea of individualism in style."

When asked by Bobby Hundreds what Rick will call his new line, he responds:

"Well, let’s be practical. The company is still Freshjive. It’s just that none of our product will have any of our logos or even our name AT ALL. Not even in the labels. And after the turn of the year, no promotional material, nor our website will have any logos. It’s really invigorating to approach designing a line WITHOUT the constrictions of how the logo is gonna be placed or used on the garments."

My question is, if Rick is so intent on getting rid of labels and logos, why is there still a black box label/logo on most of his clothing items and on his main website?





As one reader commented, "just because the black rectangle doesn’t have a word mark embedded in it doesn’t mean its not a logo." Rick isn't getting rid of brand logos and labels like he claims, he's just changing his old logo and dismissing this change as a punk move to garner support from his punk fan base, and free publicity from the press, all in an attempt to revitalize a brand that's been stagnant for years. Clearly it's working since the Huffington Post ran a story on it.

Urban Outfitters Goes Unbranded

One brand of raw denim that has been getting some ongoing buzz for the past few months among several online fashion communities (see here, here, and here) is Urban Outfitter's Unbranded Brand. Urban Outfitter's teaser website reads: "The Unbranded Brand is jeans with no name, no branding, no washes, no ads, no gimmicks. Just great denim at a great price! Wow, what a concept, only paying for the product itself... crazy, isn’t it?"

For those out of the loop, raw denim - sometimes referred to as dry denim - is a type of denim fabric that is not treated with any type of wash after being dyed during production. Unlike most denim sold at your local department store, raw denim is sold heavily starched, in a solid indigo color, and with no signs of wear or artificial distress marks. The appeal of raw denim is that it fades with wear to eventually look like a distressed pair of denim and that this fading process and the fit and distress marks that result is completely natural and unique to the person who wears the denim. If you're an outsider of raw denim, this may come as a surprise to you but most users of raw denim (including Zac Efron and Kanye West) typically abstain from washing their jeans for 6 or more months to facilitate the fading process.

Urban Outfitter's Unbranded raw denim, specifically, can be purchased here at $78 a piece, making them quite possibly the cheapest pair of selvage raw denim available. They are set to compete with Naked & Famous' own line of raw denim which is similarly priced, and APC's line of raw denim which is similarly styled.

Word on the street is that Urban Outfitter's Unbranded denim is actually made by the same people who make Naked & Famous denim. I've actually had a chance to compare both in-person and can say that they do look and fit very similarly. My guess is that Urban Outfitter's Unbranded denim is just priced lower and stripped of Naked & Famous' branding to capture a more price-conscious target market without hurting the Naked & Famous brand name.

UPDATE 03/15/10
After posting about Freshjive, I wanted to add that Urban Outfitter's Unbranded brand is a brand in itself and is pretty gimmicky as well. Instead of using a black box with a white stroke, Urban Outfitter's uses a huge leather patch above the back pocket. It's hard to tell from the picture below, but it looks fricken huge in person.

Print Ad - Gain Detergent

It's that time of the week again! Here's the third print ad I will be evaluating as part of the print ad series I have been running. If you're just tuning in, here's the first and second print ads that I evaluated.

1. Communication Objectives: The primary communication objectives of this ad are to spread awareness of Gain’s brand and maintain Gain’s brand image as a detergent that helps remove odor from clothes, like the odor was never there. In order to do this though, the ad of course has to capture the consumer’s attention, which it does very well.

2. Message Strategy: The message strategy is targeted towards low involvement consumers through an emotional appeal. For me and probably most people, the appeal is humor and overall, a positive one. For others, the appeal may be horror, fear, disgust, and rejection. The ad requires a little processing to understand the more rational message of the ad but doesn’t really require any more effort than the amount people put into choosing a detergent. Overall, I’d say the ad works in capturing attention and creating a memorable image of gain even though it does so at the expense of others who may be too disgusted with the ad to process it.

3. Evaluation of Creative Execution: The ad captures the consumer’s attention by using a combination of emotional appeals, sources, visual, and message tactics. It uses humor to capture attention and an average to below-average model surrounded by relatively above-average models to create contrast and capture even more attention. As I mentioned above, I think the tactics are appropriate for its involvement level and appeal strategy. Others might argue that the appeal and ad itself is distasteful and transfer that emotion toward the Gain brand.

4. Source & Appeal: The main source in the ad can be attractive in the sense that the consumer may be able to relate to or identify with him and maybe even find him a credible user of the brand itself, but the purpose of the source is to be funny and relate to the underlying message of the ad: Gain can help you remove odors. The Humor appeal in the ad works well in capturing attention, and creating a memorable image, while staying relevant to the message of the ad.

5. Layout: The ad is mostly comprised of visuals, but has a small headline on the bottom right that reads, “Your clothes were never there.” To the right is a picture of the product itself, which has the brand name and the product's major selling point (odor removal) on it.

Nothing Kills A Bad Product Faster Than Good Advertising

There's an old saying in the advertising world (and in my advertising textbook, which I've read in its entirety) that "nothing kills a bad product faster than good advertising." If that's true, then can someone please explain to me how the Snuggie (which has gone viral) has managed to sell over 20 million units? Is it possible that this robe worn backwards is actually a great product? Discuss.

Print Ad - Dettol

It's that time of the week again! Here's the second print ad I will be evaluating as part of the print ad series I have been running. If you're just tuning in and missed the first print ad I evaluated, you can view it here.

1. Communication Objectives: The primary communication objective of this ad is to create/remind consumers of a category need; in this case that need is hand sanitizer. The secondary objective is to create and build awareness that Dettol hand sanitizer can help the consumer fulfill this need.

2. Message Strategy: The message strategy primarily targets low involvement consumers at an emotional level using fear. At the informational level, the ad states that it kills 99.99% of germs without the need for water, which are the product’s dominant traits. The message strategy is appropriate for the category and context of the ad’s placement (buses and subways) since most people who don’t use hand sanitizer (and even those that do), do not perceive a threat in not using it and thus are not actively seeking it. This ad is effective because it visually captures the attention of low involvement consumers, creates a need for a product that was not there before by using fear, and provides a solution.

3. Evaluation of Creative Execution: As mentioned above, the ad uses unusual visuals and fear to first capture attention and create a problem for the consumer. Specifically, the ad shows severed arms with band-aids in place of what would normally be handle bars on a bus, to emphasize that other people’s hands have touched these handle bars before and that they’re covered in germs.

The model used and the visuals surrounding her is average to above average. This appeals and relates to typical consumers who, like her, are riding on a bus. The model is also displayed prominently and in stark contrast to her surroundings to capture the consumer’s attention.

Visuals and text on the bottom are meant to enhance brand and product awareness through a consistent color scheme characteristic of the brand itself. It could be argued that the ad increases its accessibility and chance of being remembered by including very little information and in a novel way that is relevant to the consumer.

Overall, the tactics used in the ad are appropriate in evoking an emotional response, arousing consumers to remove the threat, offering a solution, and raising overall brand awareness.

4. Sources & Appeals: The source and appeals used in the ad are appropriate for the message strategy and product category. Source as described above is attractive in that it is similar and thus likeable to the consumer.

The relationship between the level of fear in a message and its acceptance are curvilinear; message acceptance increases as the amount of fear used rises but only to a certain point. For the purposes of hand sanitizer, the mild fear appeal seems appropriate: consumers know they’re vulnerable but won’t avoid the message or problem because there’s an easy solution. A higher level of fear could make the ad lose credibility or result in too much elaboration of the germs actually on handle bars.

5. Layout: The headline of the ad is on the bottom of the page and reads: “Whose hand are you holding?” The subhead below reads: “Dettol Instant Sanitizer kills 99.99% of germs on hands, without the need for water.” To the right is a picture of the actual product with the brand logo. There is no body copy in this ad.