Dear Mr. Seal,

Don’t you know that your bald head (ok… and the scars if we are up close) is the only touchstone we have in our collective struggle to visually differentiate you from Tracy Chapman?

Kind regards,

Your concerned fan(s)

Thanks to Bret for pointing out that DeNiro (circa Tax Driver) appears to be backing for Seal in the first photo. Hat tip to Damon with regard to the second one.

This came up a few years back (can’t remember if I posted it) but I called someone at the office Grimace today and that led to a discussion of the origins of Grimace. Back when he debuted in 1971 he was actually referred to as “Evil Grimace,” was to shakes as Hamburglar is to hamburgers, and sported 4 to 6 arms.

Evil Grimace

I want read/see the origin story of the “Evil Grimace.” I want to know how he found redemption and became Ronald McDonald’s Robin.

Apparently the young girl in this commercial is Jodie Foster. She totally sells her “No Shakes…” line. I get sad contemplating the lack of shakes in McDonald Land.

I was going to link to this archive of old cereal boxes cause it is totally awesome. But I thought a few of the boxes deserved to be highlighted.

Apparently Native American, Mexican, Chinese and Black folks didn’t eat cereal back in the day:

Jose The Monkey

Apparently his name is SoHi

“Rick Shaw Inside!”

The chopsticks are awesome

These cats didn’t even get names…

No comment…

A rip-snortin’ cereal, a rootin’ tootin’ snack?

A few posts ago, I talked about how I struggled with Charlie’s use of the word vulnerable in reference to the relationships that are evolving between brands and their consumers. I was reading Tara Hunt’s wonderful blog this morning and lo and behold, she too used the word vulnerable in reference to marketing. I can honestly say that I never associated the word vulnerable with marketing, branding, advertising, and the like, before this past wekeend, but I am beginning to like it.

Tara uses vulnerability to identify a different part of the marketing process, but it is equally appropriate as Charlie’s reference was.

Where Charlie was referring to the vulnerability that comes with letting the relationship with consumers occur on the consumer’s terms, Tara analyzes the vulnerability that comes with open source. According to Tara:

“Open source is the most vulnerable thing I know… Making oneself publicly vulnerable is scary. Putting yourself ‘out there’, offering up source code, telling your ’secrets’, involving your community (which could include…your enemies!) - yikes. There is something to be said for surprise and delight - which is a whole other story, but my point is that community is built on trust and someone who puts themselves out there honestly has a leg up when it comes to community.”

And likewise, someone who puts themselves out there - honestly - will have a leg up when it comes to brand loyalty as well.

Vulnerability lies at the heart of both Charlie’s notion of MeVertising and Tara’s vision of open source. Companies must let go. Smart companies are realizing that in order to build a real relationship with a consumer, they must offer those things that foster meaningful relationships between people - namely honesty, respect, and the resulting trust. I am excited to see this shift in norms as corporations and consumers begin to reenvision their relationships with one another.

It makes sense. Think about your most healthy relationships with people. Likely they are founded on mutual respect, honesty, and the trust that arises from the first two. It might seem too much to ask of the folks that make your jeans or your browser, but should it be?

Charlie O’Donnell of Oddcast has a thoughtful post about the changing dynamics in branding and marketing that are afoot. According to Charlie:

When the brands woke up from being dazed, it seemed that they began to like us… to want to get closer to us. They wanted to be in our networks, to be friends with us.

At first, I started calling this phenomenon “Brand Association.” The things I buy wanted to be closer to me.

Then I realized that, even more than that, they wanted to be me, and me to be them… and to a large extent, I am them. I don’t drink, so when I’m out at bars, I’m Sprite guy. Its become a running joke, but ask any of my friends who they think of when they see a Sprite, its probably me. I am a Mustang and Jamba Juice, and Macy’s, too… I am self identifying with a number of brands. I have a relationship with brands that I am committing a part of myself to.

At first this sounded scary, reminiscent of Single White Female (Allie’s new room-mate is about to borrow a few things without asking. Her clothes. Her boyfriend. Her life).

Charlie notes that lifestyle marketing is not new, but that he is seeing a new trend where brands are “opening up and becoming vulnerable to form a stronger tie to consumers.” I struggled with the notion of a brand becoming “vulnerable.” It makes me think of lovers sharing intimate secrets with one another in a quiet whisper.

But he is on to something here. Brands have lost control. The dynamic has shifted. Brands once managed the terms of their relationships with consumers. You were cool because you wore Guess Jeans (do they still make those?). But that model is quickly being tossed out the window. A brand is now only as influential as its consumers. In that sense, brands are extremely vulnerable. You are no longer what you wear. But what you wear (the brand) is increasingly becoming you.

Charlie has come up with an interesting term for what he sees as a blurring of one’s own identity, brand association, consumption, and the like. He calls it “MeVertising.”