You’re soo right.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VdgI0j1odkY

Posted by J on 03/09/07, 10:09 pm

Yeh, great work by jayj.

Check out some of his other video mixes as well…

http://www.youtube.com/user/itsthejayj

Posted by Luke Clark on 03/09/07, 10:55 pm

A long comment, but one you will hopefully find of interest.

As a supplement to the post it is interesting to note the simplification of the packaging, if not the entire approach to branding. This may be an emerging strategy for global identities (note the new coca-cola can design in the printed instance of CR (September 2007) and the return to a flattened apple sign (http://www.flickr.com/photos/25063064@N00/sets/72157601677228844/)). Gone are the ever evolving and overt complexities that sought to distance the product from competitors (3-dimensional, drop shadow, highlights, hyper-realist illustrations etc.). In these new designs the relations between imagery, logotype, brand name, and product, are made distinct but still retain a total identity. Thus for coca-cola, the can is reduced to a stark (1) red and white, (2) flat logotype (script), and (3) the ribbon. Similarly for cadbury’s and apple – for cadbury it’s (1) purple and white, (2) flat brand and logotype (which form a single swirling design), and (3) glass and a half being poured (into chocolate chunk), whilst for apple it’s (1) ‘fruity’ rainbow colours, (2) flat apple logo, and (3) and the Myriad typeface.

But this is not a return to simplicity for the sake of some austere notion of ‘less is more’. Rather what these appearances seek to do is seize the ownership of specific sites and situations–to convince us of their truth. We can see that it is only those elements which are distinctly enforceable that are retained (e.g. legal trademarks). If competitors attempt to appropriate any of these elements they can expect a lengthy and expensive legal battle–one which the global brands can not only afford to endure, but may instigate where they wish to cripple the strategy of a smaller competitor (e.g. threaten to sue for failure to comply with their demands, knowing that the cost of defence, if lost, would deter all but the most determined).

What these new designs attempt to do is define the line of visual proprietary, and make that territory acceptable and unquestionable. Hence this overtly restrictive legal sphere is offset with the illusion of an ‘open’, ’shareable’ ‘community’, one greatly informed by the functionality and use of the internet (youtube, myspace, facebook, etc.). The fact that the gorilla video (although entertaining and very well produced and acted) has nothing to do with a branded chocolate should tell us something. Enamoured as we may be by these productions, we are inadvertently asked to spread the word of each brand idnetity, and in doing so we act as carriers of their corporate strategy. That strategy is to direct our attention toward pleasure, and ignore any critical concerns. Indeed it is a battle that seeks to make critique appear futile and overly ascetic. Thus, these companies not only seek to control creativity–to direct and dominate the limits of our creativity–but to make us complicit in that action.

Posted by MLA on 05/09/07, 2:02 pm

@ MLA,

Aye.

Posted by willrust on 08/09/07, 11:07 am