They call it 'Happy Holidays'...

... because with all the emphasis on store deals and Santa Claus, it's like Jesus (or the concept of Jesus) never existed.

Happy Holidays/Merry Christmas

Volcano: My Personal Brand

My logo.

For my Advertising class in the Red River College of Applied Arts, Science and Technology Creative Communications program, we have been assigned to create personal brands for ourselves.  As you can see, I had to design a logo for this project.  I created a moniker called "Volcano".

Why "Volcano"? Why not just "Zach Samborski"? Well, I figured it would be good to create a concept that stood out.  In many ways, I am like a volcano.  Before it erupts, a volcano is simply just a form of mass rock.  When the volcano erupts, it stands out above everything else.

I am like a volcano in that I am as conservative as the rocks that surround me from time to time.  But on the odd occasion, I'll erupt -- not in anger, but rather in terms of projecting things like major creative ideas, opinions, and humor.  Some people have their own concepts.  For Hunter S. Thompson, there was Raoul Duke.  For me, there is The Volcano.

Like the volcano that erupts, I make my ideas known and my opinions clear when the time calls for them.  I will not be afraid to speak my mind on a given subject.  In my Journalism class, I spoke with anger when discussing parking meter increases.  I noticed I had the attention of almost the entire room.  In The Writer's Craft class, I was doing crazy song and dance routines that also had the attention of the entire room.

Like a volcano, I am unpredictable, and when I erupt with ideas, I seem to unleash them all at once.  I believe in the dramatic and the conceptual, and I try to incorporate the conceptual into almost anything, including the logo above.

Like a volcano, I make the strongest statement.  Like the volcano's eruption, I form strong opinions.  I am rarely apathetic.  I believe in a world where the unjust are rightly punished, where kindness is rewarded.  And I believe that collective thought should never take precedence over individual creativity.

And once I exit this Creative Communications program, I hope to leave my conceptual mark in the real world.  As someone who is hoping to major in Public Relations, I want to create campaigns of intrigue and memorability.  I want to take complicated messages and simplify them into memorable logos or one-word statements.  I want to create things that cannot go unnoticed.

It is necessary to blend in with all other rocks for awhile and then erupt with ideas at the precise moments.  Eruptions are not memorable if they are never-ending.  Eruptions are only memorable because they take people by surprise.  Sooner or later, I want to be known as someone who took the world by surprise.





"Viewing" Audiences

I consider myself to be a highly analytical person.  And whenever I hear about a television show getting big, I try to picture the audience watching that particular show.

Take the show True Blood, for example (or just about any other show on HBO).  I have never seen a single episode of True Blood, but I have seen video clips and images.  I have also seen some of the marketing campaigns for that show (and the DVD covers).  After seeing these videos and images, I sort of have a picture of the typical True Blood viewer.  All of the actors and actresses on the show are in their mid 20s to early 40s, and I picture the audience to be in that same age range.

The True Blood viewer probably lives in an apartment or condominium, and is likely female.  She probably listens to Adele and goes to Starbucks every day.  I'm guessing she may read some Nicholas Sparks novels from time to time.  She probably likes to talk about Ryan Gosling or whoever you find in PEOPLE.

It may sound stupid to say you know who the typical True Blood viewer is.  But if you look at how the show is marketed, you can see there are subliminal messages intended for specific demographics.

Just take a look at this picture of the cast:

 

(source: sciencefiction.com)

 



Look at how they are dressed.  Look at their facial expressions.  Look at how they pose.  If you're in your late twenties, you can relate to this depiction.  You can relate to the sexual undertones and the depictions of youth.

 

You cannot create a successful television show if you invent characters out of thin air.  You need to know what people are wearing, what kind of alcohol people are drinking, and what fascinated people.  The most successful television shows are ones with characters that mirror their audiences.  People in their late twenties and early thirties obssess over this show because they can relate to the characters. 

 

In many ways, it is our narcissism that dicates our viewing habits.  We want to be told that we are important.  If we get that message, then we will listen.  People do not watch True Blood because it is about vampires.  People watch True Blood because it's a show about twenty-something and thirty-something yuppies who encounter what we call "first-world problems".  Vampirism is just the hyperbole.  Cosmopolitanism is the main message, and that is why I picture a cosmopolitan audience watching True Blood.  The "vampires" on the show act the way cosmopolitan young adults are supposed to act.

 

 

 





The allure of international brands

The Winnipeg Free Press reported today that Marshalls, an American retail store that specializes in clothing, will be opening its first Winnipeg store sometime next year.

This probably would not make headlines in the United States.  But whenever a store from another country expands into Canada, people take notice.  Famous Dave's, Target, Best Buy, Forever 21, and Victoria's Secret all got considerable media attention when they expanded into Winnipeg.  So did Walmart when it purchased Woolco back in the early 1990s.

Remember Woolco?

(source: saclifeforce.com)

Sure, Americans are brand-savvy.  But because there are so many brands in the United States, many chains simply fade into the background.  If Target or Walmart opens up in a small city, it really is no big deal.  But in Canada, it is a big deal.  American chains are always at the forefront of Canadian consumer consciousness.  People line up for blocks when this new, exciting store opens.

But why is it such a big deal? Why do international brands garner so much attention in Canada? 

Because in this country, there seems to be a collective sense of feeling small.  As Canadians, we value our independence, but we admit that our influence on the world stage pales in comparison to that of the United States.  We are attracted to American brands because the influence of American culture is strong enough to "suck" us in.  But we are also attracted to American brands because, in many ways, we value being connected to the rest of the world.  Culture is now globalized, and so is our shopping mentality.  

In matters like politics, Canadians may resist the influence of the United States.  But consumer culture transcends political barriers and divisions.  We also marvel at brands from other countries.  IKEA (Sweden) is now the talk of the town in Winnipeg, and many of us also drive Japanese cars.  

What we are witnessing is not the Americanization of our culture and identity.  What we are witnessing instead is the breaking down of cultural barriers. 





Everywhere Is A Foreign Country

I only started going to socials and get-togethers this year (most of them are related to Creative Communications).  After years of not going to such events, I wanted to get out and experience what others had been doing for so many years.

This may sound ridiculous to some, but when I went to the Creative Communications Marker Social this September, I felt like I was in a foreign country, and I am not kidding about that.  I am not usually the kind of person you will find around strobe lights and DJs.  My concept of leisure has always been a trip to the buffet, casino, bookstore, library, public pool, and movie theatre; I have stayed away from bars a great deal.

It should not surprise you, then, that I was viewing the world through the eyes of a child when I was at the Marker Social.  Actually, I would describe it as an out-of-body experience.  I was dancing along with many other people, but in some respect, I didn't feel like I was "there".

What I learned from that experience is this: if you give your money and devote your time to the same old institutions, you create a world for yourself.  Once you go to other institutions like bars and nightclubs, the world you create becomes more complex, more complicated.

I will argue there are two kinds of worlds: the world you experience and the world as is.  The food you eat and the places you go to help create the former.  If tastes can change and if interests can change, then your world can change as well.  Seeing things from a different perspective helps create that world, and it is up to you to keep it as is or tear it down and start from scratch.

"Mind Control"

Today, in a conversation with several of my classmates in the Red River College Creative Communications program, I talked about people who advocate the use of marijuana, LSD, and related drugs.

Many advocates of mind-altering drugs will tell non-users that drugs like LSD act as gateway.  These particular advocates argue that if you do not use drugs, you are a victim of corporate mind control.  If you don't use drugs, the advocates say, you will never learn to think for yourself.

So said the folks who bought every word that Timothy Leary preached.  They denounced capitalism yet had no trouble giving their dollars to buy Dr. Leary's books or his spoken-word albums.  

Timothy Leary and the counterculture he led had much in common with the corporations they denounced: they had a message to sell.  "Tune in, turn on, drop out" was the anthem of counter-culture druggies.  The same druggies who criticized "corporate mind control" were taking drugs that controlled their own minds.  A case of pot calling the kettle black.

I think there's a fundamental difference between 'mind control' and buying into a message.  It is always possible to buy into a message while disagreeing with certain aspects of that message, and in no way can a person call that "mind control".  'Mind control' implies that a person has no agency.  Consumerism impacts us, but it does not control us.  If a person can simply stop listening to a message, that person has agency.  If your mind is under total control, you cannot avoid the message.  Our modern society just makes it hard to avoid consumerist messages.  But if people have the option to avoid, then they are free.

It is not the consumer who is under mind control.  It is the addict, the junkie, the Dionysian.  When the addiction takes hold, it is impossible to take different routes.  The addict cannot think for his or herself.  A person who cannot think will always accuse others of not thinking.  The gambling addict, alcohol addict, and shopping addict are all the same.  The messages they accept are not to blame.  The addicts only have themselves to blame.

Digital Romanticism: A Destruction of the English Language

 

(source: matrixfour.com)

 

 

 

 

The image above is a telling symbol of the state of the English language today.  It tells us how technology has circumvented our nerves and brains.

 

 

The new English language is more brief than the sentences I type.  LMFAO, LOL, OMG, ROFL -- three and four letter words violating all syntax yet making sense to newer beings.  When you look at the image above, you are witnessing a force with greater repercussions than a vicious block of wind.  You are witnessing the creation of a communicating line.  You are seeing the words all will only understand within a few decades.

 

 

The computer has replaced the book, and the meme is the monarch that rules over the language-impoverished land.  For many, it's easier to remember five letters than fifty-five sentences.  They were raised by machines, and thus, their brains act like machines, each technical execution committed five seconds after the prior. 

 

 

In the end, the acronym is pleasure, but it numbs us in midst of lethality.  

 



Give In to Hedonism: What I Learned from Last Saturday's Bomber Game

When I was at the Winnipeg Blue Bombers game last Saturday, my stomach rumbled as I walked around the stadium.  The smell of grilled meat, fries, and mini donuts was unavoidable. 

The price of food at a football game is astronomical.  At the Salisbury House stand, a Salsbury Nip cost almost $5.00.  Drinks alone cost $4.00.  You would think those prices would turn people away from the stands.  Instead, people were lining up to get their quick fix, and I was one of them.

A brilliant way to make money is to overwhelm the senses.  In this case, it's the sense of smell.  Normally, we are supposed to think, not feel in these situations, as we are supposed to watch our wallets.  But we give in to temptation anyway and let our pocketbooks take a bruising.

I gave into temptation and spent almost $7.00 on a bag of fries and a small cup of coffee.  I did because I lost control.  The smells challenged all reason, and the smells prevailed.  I became a few dollars poorer, but I didn't care because my stomach stopped screaming.

Human beings let their hedonistic desires go wild whenever their senses are appealed to.  Our hedonistic pursuit makes it very easy for eateries to draw us in and empty our wallets.  The food is expensive, but so be it, we need to satsify each and every craving.

Some have called such business practices immoral, but I disagree.  If we are to call the practice of selling food at football games immoral, we might as well call Hallmark cards immoral -- food tugs at our stomachs, and sappy poetry tugs at our hearts.  To be emotional is to be human, and our modern economy thrives on all that makes us human. 

It is easy for a human being to lose the sense of equlibrium and batter his or herself financially to please all senses.  Not all human beings, however, are like this.  It is important to remember that an institution's job is not to tame addiction.  An institution's job is to make money.  Institutions make money by knowing what is human.

I See, Therefore I Vote.

 

(source: cbsnews.com)

 

 

Politicians are walking advertisements.  They sell "big ideas" and persuade people to vote, and they don't even have to sell ideas.  All they really have to sell are appearences and sounds.  Thus, politicans are really living, breathing brands who make their mark with voices and body language.

 

 

When everyone talked about Barack Obama's now infamous debate performance against Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, they commented on his body language.  In this CBS News clip, commentators discuss how body language makes a person look presidential.  The general consensus was that Obama did not look presidential.  He kept looking down at this podium instead of addressing Mitt Romney directly. 

 

 

Obama disappointed not only his small-l liberal supporters but also moderates and independents.  Obama wowed the latter two in the 2008 presidential election with his strong command of the spoken word.  In front of the world on that debate stage, Obama looked like a shell of his former self.  All it took was one debate to shift the momentum back into Romney's direction.

 

 

Obama probably would have walked away with minimal damage had the economic recovery been stronger.  But because the American economy was (and is) still in a pitiful state, Obama had to defend his record.  By giving a poor debate performance, he came across as a person who could not defend his record at all.

 

 

The greatest irony, though, is that in this consumer era, an incumbent politician does not need to defend his or her record as much as in the past.  All a politician needs to do is creative a narrative that people can run with.  The narrative does not even have to be strong, for if the opposing candidate is weak, the narrative can look strong by comparison. 

 

 

Some say that people today vote with their hearts, not their heads.  I disagree.  Rather, I think people vote with their eyes and ears.  The image of the politician is the message, and the message does not have to be true.  Instead, it just has to be appealing.

 

 

It has also been said that people want to vote for the candidate they would like to have a beer with.  But I also believe that voters want a candidate that represents their best qualities.  Richard Nixon appealed to blue-collar workers yet alienated many other voting blocs in the process.  His message of law and order resonated with many voters, but many could not accept the message of a man with a stern voice and drooping jowls.  No one wants to see their inner demon in the mirror, and to many, Nixon was their inner demon.

 

 

Many voters flocked to Barack Obama  because they saw their best qualities within him.  People like hope, and people like a candidate who propigates the message of hope.  Four years later, they see a man who is wrinklier, crankier, and vastly more arrogant at least on television.  Even if Barack Obama is not a failure, he looks like a failure on television.  Voters hate failure in government, and even if they have lost faith in their candidates, they still demand a message that resonates.  Barack Obama has a message that may resonate with economists and policy wonks, but he doesn't have a message that resonates with the ordinary voter.  Raw data is useless to the eyes in today's political era.  Voters want a good salesman, not just an economist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Veganism: A Case of the Ego Power Trip

Many people like to boast about their healthy eating habits.  In a country where the obesity rate continues to climb, it's hard not to. 

Healthy eating and active living are golden eggs for vegan-based restaurants like Boon Burger Cafe.  Veganism seems to be catching on in urban centres.

I believe that institutions like these sell the idea that a healthier lifestyle is akin to some kind of individual exceptionalism.  A prolonged lifestyle, of course, does not say anything about a person's "uniqueness", yet many people accept the message that by not eating animals, they will be canonized. 

People often use accomplishment to boost ego.  Yet our definitions of what constitutes 'accomplishment' have changed greatly over decades.  The young adults of today are led to believe that a lifestyle is in itself an accomplishment.  That myth will perpetuate for many years.

There is nothing exceptional about veganism, but many believe it is.  As a result, there are dangerous repercussions.  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) plans to erect billboards near public in schools in Canada condemning Thanksgiving.  Their message is clear: eating turkey for Thanksgiving is the same thing as eating your Jack Russell terrier. 

I think PETA speaks volumes about modern rebellion.  In previous days, rebellion was all about challenging authority.  Today, rebellion groups like PETA seek to impose a new authority.  PETA's utopia is a world where every single meat packing facility is closed, every slaughterhouse is demolished, and every meat-based farm is seized.  It is ego that fuels the cause of PETA.

Our perceptions of what constitutes an 'ego' are changing, and many now see 'ego' as a way to impose a power structure.  If you do not think PETA is influential, think again.  The New Democratic Party of Canada, Green Party of Canada, and the Liberal Party of Canada have many members who are either vegetarian or vegan.  Vegans influence the policies of these political parties, and the dairy farmers, beef farmers, fishermen, and meat packers all pay the steepest price when PETA-influenced policy gets implemented to the fullest extent.

If a person who is oppressed believes that he is exceptional, he will become the oppressor.  The same rings true for those who call themselves 'animal liberationists'.