The Musings Of An Opinionated Sod [Help Me Grow!]

To be honest, we quite like them. Well, quite like them for a bank.

They are easy to deal with … they actually pay us some interest and they send out information on time.

So imagine our surprise when we got an email from them saying that because Jill hadn’t transacted on the account for the past 2 years, they would close it down and give the cash [which was quite a sizable amount] to the Government if they didn’t hear from her immediately.

OK … so I can sort of understand they want to check the person is still alive, but it was all a bit aggressive for my liking.

But that was only the start of the weird.

You see Jill rang ING and confirmed that yes, she was still breathing … only to told by the lady on the other end of the phone, that wasn’t enough and she had to actually transact on her account.

When Jill pointed out she couldn’t do it immediately because her day-to-day funds weren’t in Australia any more, the bank person told her not to worry because she could do it on her behalf.

And do you know what she did?

She transferred 1 cent between her ING account and her other Australian bank.

ONE CENT.

ONE TIDDLY CENT.

ONE TIDDLY CENT AND EVERYTHING WAS OK.

But it was actually much more than one cent wasn’t it.

The initial email … the phone call … the movement of money between accounts … all that adds up to way more than just one teeny-weeny Australian cent both in respects of time, money and energy being wasted.

I appreciate ING were just following the rules, but that doesn’t mean it makes sense – at least the ‘moving money’ bit.

I’m almost entirely positive the person/people who added the ‘transactional element’ to the legislation did it under the guise of ‘ensuring the account owner can be easily identified’.

Except that if the account hasn’t been used for 2 years, it’s hardly a hotbed of fraudulent activity is it?!!!

I know I’m going off on a tangent-ridden rant, but all this proves to me is that common sense isn’t that common and the people who make the financial rules are as questionable as the banks who do all they can to work around them.

Though naturally, they never try and find loop holes when it involves creating customer red-tape do they.

This isn’t an anti-capitalist rant, as I’ve said a lot of times, money isn’t evil – it can make amazingly good things happen – the issue is always how you made it and what you do with it.

However I recently came across an issue of Bloomberg magazine that surprised me.

Sure, the front cover – and main story – was about India’s poor, however of the 105 pages in the magazine, there was a total of 10 full page [some, double page spreads] ads for charities.

Now 10 ads for charities in a magazine of over 100+ pages doesn’t seem a lot does it … but when you remember that there are only about 30 odd pages dedicated to advertising, you realise that approx 1/3 of all the ads in that edition of the magazine came from charities asking for money.

We saw ads about planting trees … helping the hungry … stopping malnutrition … saving the planet … making medicines available to all … you name it, we got it.

Now I have no beef with charitable organisations advertising for donations, even in highly expensive business magazines like Bloomberg, I’m more interested in why they all felt this edition was the right edition to be in, after all :

1. I buy the magazine regularly and rarely see that many charitable ads.

2. Going into an edition with so many ‘competitor’ organizations adds even more barriers to getting donations, that is unless you’re one of the ‘flavour of the month’ charities.

I’m assuming the reasons cover issues including:

1. Bloomberg offered special rates.

4. Some of the organizations are more associated with political purposes than charitable.

But why didn’t the charities – and Bloomberg – get together and do something a bit more pro-active?

Why didn’t they do a story on the importance of charities and create one, all-encompassing and simple way to donate?

Why didn’t the charities say that for that edition, any donation would be equally split amongst all of them?

Why didn’t the charities ask for help that went beyond money but instead services, advice, infrastructure or distribution?

Hell, why didn’t Bloomberg say that for every copy of their magazine purchased, they would make a donation on their behalf?

I have my thoughts on why this didn’t happen, but it again highlights how too many charities [1] focus, at least in terms of their communication, on getting donations rather than getting help to accomplish their ultimate goal and [2] aren’t inventive enough in terms of getting donations or accomplishing their ultimate goal.

I hate how they go on and on and on about the 2nd amendment because I’m pretty sure their attitude towards assault weapon ownership has more to do with wanting to feel powerful, dangerous and feared than anything to do with the 2nd amendment.

Besides, the 2nd amendment has a bunch of other things in it that people have happily ignored/moved on from … but where guns are concerned, some people have latched on to that as if it was the oxygen they breathe.

If these people are such democratic advocates, why doesn’t America put it to a vote?

Of course it’s because that even if they lost, the NRA would claim it was all rigged and the issue would continue – and possibly escalate – but while I appreciate it’s the people who kill others with guns rather than guns themselves, the fact is it would be more unlikely to occur with such frighteningly regular occurrence if gun access was severely limited.

Anyway, enough political posturing from me, watch these and weep.

Innovators.

Experts.

Business liberators.

Creators.

But I wouldn’t say any of those.

Oh no, for me, there’s a whole bunch of other words I’d use.

Charlatans.

Illusionists.

Delusionists.

Conmen.

But hey, that’s just me.

OK, to be absolutely fair I am being unbelievably generalistic because:

1. Not all branding companies are like that. Hell, I know quite a few who genuinely live up to their ego.

3. Not all branding companies charge ridiculous amounts for a logo they claim will change the World.

But sadly, I can’t help but feel these are in the minority … though that could be because the big, bland boys are constantly in the press making outrageous claims while basically destroying the credibility and value of the wider industry at the same time.

Landor anyone?

Futurebrand anyone?

Arnell anyone?

Of course I know it’s not just branding companies that act this way.

Adland has made some of the most amazing fuckwit declarations since Chamberlin came back and said Hitler was rather a nice chappie … but at least they don’t:

1. Claim a logo, all on it’s own, can achieve business success.

3. Say there is a ‘proprietary system’ for any single thing the client wants. From ‘naming strategies’ to ‘where to hang a sign’.

That said, they get away with charging a fuckload cash for what they do, so maybe it’s adland who are the idiots, but I digress.

I say all this because I recently learnt that the Tourism Australia had blown AU$200,000 to change their logo from this …

… to this …

Even though it is an Aussie cliché [which is at least more honest than the shit they say in their ads] I personally prefer the original, but that’s down to my [bad] personal taste.

However what caught my eye was when I read the justification behind the change … justification that makes me feel utter, utter despair.

First the reason for the change.

Here’s Andrew McEvoy, the managing director of Tourism Australia:

“Tourism brands the world over, from Australia to Argentina, are continually updating their visual identity. Even New York’s iconic ‘I [heart] NY’ logo was revamped for the city’s recent summer tourism campaign. While it has powerful visual elements that are still relevant, the current logo itself is beginning to look out-of-step with the next phase of our There’s nothing like Australia campaign.”

OK, to be fair, it’s a fairly decent rationale. Well, the second sentence is – the first is just a statement that could indicates that other tourism boards are as desperate to show they are doing something as Tourism Australia.

No, the bit that really bothers me is this, from Richard Curtis, MD at Interbrand.

“There’s a lot about the existing logo that we wanted to keep. It has real vibrancy and a sense of movement. But some of the elements are unnecessarily complex and difficult to reproduce – like the sun’s glare on the kangaroo’s back, the kangaroo’s paws and ears.”

Curtis adds the logo was too “childlike”, and did not reflect the “sophistication” of Tourism Australia’s brand positioning.

WHAT THE FUCK???

Putting aside the issue regarding ‘Australia and sophistication’, they think this new logo is less ‘childlike’ than the original?

Are they kidding me?

Even if it was true, does this express style and sophistication to you?

Hell, I’m from Nottingham and it doesn’t do it for me, so fuck knows how people from decent cities and countries will interpret it.

And I wonder if their brief was to ‘freshen up’ or ‘recreate’ the logo?

Judging by Andrew McEvoy’s comment, it was to freshen up – but I cannot tell you the amount of times I’ve seen a branding company come back with an update of the original logo, even though they could have done things more radically. Especially when they say the logo is supposed to be the embodiment of the change they have engineered within the company.

Bollocks.

Apparently this whole re-design [even though it is not a redesign by any stretch of the imagination] took 6 months to complete.

SIX MONTHS!

We all know why it took that long, because every colour change meant copious amounts of 3 hour meetings as shades were discussed as if they were the answer to mankind’s survival.

OK, in the big scheme of things – given the amount of people that not doubt were involved in something like this, not to mention the amount of versions they had to create for the various collateral they smack their logo on – AU$200,000 isn’t that much cash, but I just wonder what could have been done if instead of a committee approach, Tourism Australia reached out to the countries best designers and said, what would you do to represent this great country to the World in the most distinctive, relevant and captivating way possible?

Apart from it maybe costing less than the AU$200,000, I think the big, bland, boring branding companies given a real kick up the arse – making them have to actually prove their worth rather than suck up time and fees with pointless processes and methodologies.

The funny thing is that while branding companies love to look down on adland and try to take away their revenue, management consultants are now doing the same to branding companies – which begs the question, if they’re so good at branding and marketing, how are they allowing that to happen.

All this says to me is that like adland, great work tends to happen because of great people [inside companies] rather than great companies and certainly great processes … but given we live in a World where companies prefer ‘safe’ to ‘pragmatic’, it’s no wonder they prefer to work with companies who take the ‘human factor’ out of what they need to develop.

Though to be fair, given many companies act like fucking egotistical nut cases when the shackles are taken off, it’s no surprise we’re all trapped in this perpetual loop of frustration and lost potential.

An amazing vehicle that trail-blazed new ways to power mainstream vehicles.

Of course, as I wrote a few weeks ago, the fact that society is getting fatter might mean all the benefits of a more eco-friendly car are lost … but still, good on them for making it happen.

That said, I saw an ad for them recently that made me think even they know things are different than they once were.

Have a look at this …

Can you see what I’m talking about?

No, it’s not a person, it’s the cat.

Look at that bastard, it’s huge!

Seriously, it’s as if Garfield had sex with an elephant. Or at least a lion.

Now I know why they’ve put the beast in the garage because they’re trying to communicate the ‘clean benefits’ of the Prius … but anyone with a moggy knows that the last place a cat sleeps is somewhere that doesn’t afford them total pampering pleasure, as the wonderful IKEA spot from Mother showed.

Or maybe I’ve got it all wrong and this is simply Toyota’s way of stopping anyone suing them when sometime in the future, it all comes out their technology has adverse side effects on humans. And cats.