Wednesday, 17 March 2010

Speaking of South Park

This is a great (if not Apple-heavy review) of the South Park edit process. Pretty impressive reading.



Quick, fun and offensive...

If only I'd had my way with this advert (and defied every professional bone in my body). To have printed this would have been great fun:



Guess the readers of Metro and The Sun will have to wake up to this on Friday instead...

Tuesday, 16 March 2010

New MTVNE channel idents

The new european idents - and by some serious talent...

"“The idea is to promote healthy collaboration between the world’s best motion design talent, whether they are established or straight out of school and wet behind the ears," explains Roberto Bagatti, creative director of MTV's world design studio. "Over time this will allow MTV International to grow and evolve our idents into what could be the best body of international motion design work associated with one brand” (interview printed on CRBlog).

MTV Dance has particular 'wow' factor I think, courtesy of Paris based studio, View.

For the full set of idents click here:
http://vimeo.com/icc/videos




McLaren Website

Making motorsport look non-tacky for the first time is a tough brief.
Interesting that the concept of this design, however, was to make it look like it was designed by a machine. A factual website that combines typography with basic imagery - informative yet not copy heavy. I like.



David James

A great Art Director - and one with a retrospective.



Fonts of the day

There are some nice web-savy fonts doing the rounds on beta at the moment - here a a few which stand out.

Mentone

BonevoCF


Delicious

Monday, 8 March 2010

Canada on Strike



"Yeah, but you know, I learned something today. We thought we could make money on the Internet. But, while the Internet is new and exciting for creative people, it hasn't matured as a distribution mechanism to the extent that one should trade real and immediate opportunities for income for the promise of future online revenue. It will be a few years before digital distribution of media on the Internet can be monetized to the extent that necessitates content producers to forego their fair value in more traditional media."

Quite.

Thursday, 4 March 2010

Something in the air

I previously muttered something about the iPad not running Flash which, I've discovered, is more to do with mobile versions of Apple Safari not running Flash plugins rather than the mobile OSX rejecting it altogether. But it still didn't explain how Wired had created their 'old/new media mashup of disappointment' that I linked to and whinged about last week. Then I stumbled upon this post in the NYTimes:


So...it's run on Adobe Air.

A confession. I've always had a relative amount of confusion with Adobe Air - mainly because I'm not sure exactly what it does or what I can use it for. I remember getting a press release about it in my inbox a while ago that said it had something to do with mobile phones. Or moving things about on a page. Or 'fun' games. This was in a pre-iPhone age however - before people discovered you can sell a flashing line on a screen that makes an unconvincing whooshing noise to the world for £1.79 as an 'interactive application' (step forward the stunningly weak Star Wars LightSabre app).

Now we know that anything 'interactive' sells, and has become the disposable cash heavy AB1 demographics all time new-super-favorite-shiny-thing. And now we also know that every publisher in the land is shouting, "I want one of those application things made...apparently it makes cash or something...I WANT INTERNET MONEY! GIVE ME INTERNET MONEY!" rather than asking, "does our brand fit this technology, and if it does, do we need an application? Does our level of UI and demographic fit this level of technology? Can we use it's specification to improve our brand or will it show weaknesses in our brand / digital investment / knowledge of our customers?"

Apple has it's own development kit for it's applications which is massive (6GB or something), which last time I checked, didn't have any Adobe branding on it anywhere. CS Suite 4 has Apple exports (as does After Effects CS3, I seem to remember), but the motherload will apparently land in CS5 - which early reports are promising will be fully iPod/iPhone/iWhatever compliant.

This is good news - given the huge cost of these suites and licences, most publishers are now slowly moving from CS1 to CS3, so that means they should be iPhone AND old media compliant sometime around...oooh 2017?

So...what does Adobe Air do again? Is it a plugin for the CS Suite? Am I using it without realising? The only programme I've ever notice running it is TweetDeck. Clearly I'm being ignorant of it - if it bypasses the need for Flash plug-ins, then this can only be a good thing - but I've not yet worked with a Digital creative department that have been shouting about it, nor a developer that keeps shouting it's name at every problem I pose.
Strange. So this week I'm going to investigate what it actually does.

Hopefully it does something AMAZING.

Too much to do...

This last week has been rather busy - so busy with deadlines that the opportunity to update this versus sleep - lost to sleep. And illness. And long hours in front of a Macbook. And, for some reason, a lot of yoghurt. Press deadlines for Two and a Half Men have been hit - and now we move onto the Olivia Lee (Dirty Sexy Funny) campaign, which has creative that's been created by external agency. I've always had some problem with external PR agencies when I've used them - something always goes wrong or the result isn't what you quite expected. I'm not sure why this is the case. I've also worked with several who seem to place their own ownership of the assets over their clients (despite the fact that it's the clients brand and they have paid for it - and usually handsomely). Enough said really.




Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Ryan McGinley - New York Times High Fliers at Vancouver 2010

I first came across Ryan McGinley's images a while ago when I worked on Art World Magazine and I had the pleasure of spending considerable time choosing selections of his images for the issue. Since then he's moved from being the beau of the NYC fine art scene to bona-fide international photographer in demand - as can be seen in his recent work for the New York Times magazine. I really liked Moonmilk (currently being shown at the Rove gallery in London as part of a group show), but editorial photography is a very different beast to fashion and fine art...yet these images are, again, stunning. Choosing McGinley to shoot sport after his history of fashion, and his main body of work - photographing the NYC lo-fi art scene (along with many intimate portraits of the late Dash Snow) was inspired commissioning. I'd like to think I'd be that bold in my choices given the chance (and budget).








There's something about how McGinley uses natural light that I find impressive...another name on the list of people I'd love to commission but would hate to brief (one place below Nadav Kander).


Image copyright - Ryan McGinley / NY Times 2010

FFFFFFFFFFFFFound!

I spend a lot of time browsing ffffound. It's like a visual barometer. An image bookmarking site that is fantastically simple...and that's pretty much it. 2am and can't find any inspiration despite 4 strong coffees and the threat of a deadline? Might just be me then. http://ffffound.com/




Birthday!

Happy Birthday Photoshop. Even the Daily Mail celebrated - by calling for all retouched images to carry visual warnings. That's progress. They have a point with this image (below) though, which they put on their website. Mainly because as retouching goes, it's diabolical.




Paid content...a basic opinion after sitting in too many meetings.

This argument will rumble on, but it's something people are always interested in talking about...or more likely, arguing about. A normal conversation on the subject can be reduced to something akin to a mildly contentious forum topic on the BBC's HYS within seconds. 1 minute in there will be a sense of mild threat and right-wing babble. 2 minutes in, someone will probably mention Hitler (or Murdoch depending on their knowledge of media ownership Vs knee-jerk-popular-culture-references ).

The arguments are cyclical and ultimately pointless as the media landscape changes so quickly that the concept of basic paid content will probably be defunct come 2011. What amazes me however is how, suddenly, publishers have thought "hang on a second...we could charge for that" bearing in mind their ONLY job is to profit from content (the moral guardianship argument died many years ago). The other thing that I stare at in disbelief is: as companies whose sole reason for existence is to make profit (I'm excluding the BBC here - that is a whole different discussion that could fill entire novels), and understand the principles of making profit via product (hint: you add value to something then sell it) they seem intent on charging for basic recycled news from the wires. News is almost worthless - you wouldn't dare buy shares in it. It's worth a million the second it arrives, then devalues to zero within the next minute, and the nature of news is that it spreads quickly. That's the point of it. No one owns it. It just happens. People talk about it (and the more people talk about it the more it devalues).

Now...take that news, add comment and analysis, figures, facts and research...and you've added value. Now you can sell it. If you're a TV network, show it all for free, then sell it via iTunes if people want to watch it when they want or in see it in 720p HD.

The FT is a classic example of a publisher that adds value to their content. Finance figures and facts are dry and need to be analysed, so you analyse them. And as if by magic...you've added value, and you can sell it. And they have sold this feature content, and they've made profit from it. The paper looks good, has little competition (due to it's niche editorial policy) and the website works well and does what it should. I can't comment about the quality of the content they sell - finance bewilders me - but I can reflect on their seemingly rude financial health when compared to others.

I'll cut it short here as I'm boring myself - you can probably see my view. To cut to a conclusion: I won't be paying to read my 'breaking' news from The Sun website, and I didn't mention Hitler arguing why.



Above: The mythical semi-paywall...and my weird need to read Tyler Brule's strangely addictive 'Fast Lane' column exposed in one image.

Obligatory iPad post

A few publishers (and Wired US, pictured) have become associated with new media development over the past year. iPhone apps were shown off, betas have been seen on video clips prior to the iPad launch...and now another clip has appeared courtesy of Adobe who seem keen to be associated with 'the next generation of reader technology'. This struck me as odd though, as, if media reports are to be believed, the iPad doesn't support Flash Video (nor the iPod touch) - Apple have stuck once more to their belief in HTML5 and the H264 video codec due to their opinion that Flash is detrimental to multi-application RAM use. (I maybe wrong here, but that's how I read it. My mind isn't that technical).

But hey - doesn't the graphic look good? Wow! Look at it move about the screen! Look at the...content... oh...look at how it...looks like...like...a digital edition...oh.

An admission here - I dislike digital editions - I dislike them enough to recommend to clients to drop them from their strategy. They do two things - they ape the feel and UI of a magazine while engaging with new media elements - but they do both less well than a good magazine and an engaging website (and I've yet to see someone sell into one successfully). There are much better options out there that are more satisfying to the user.
My interest in the iPad isn't because I use Macs (I do) or because I crave another brushed silver addition to my briefcase (I don't) - my interest lies in the user interaction, navigation potential, and the ability to create new and engaging user interactive environments. But this demo just left me dry...the copy in the same columns as the magazine, the website style hover-overs...and what feels like a lack of...

...it's boring, basically. The iPad gives us the start of the technology needed to create new forms of media with new concepts of interaction and distribution. Lets hope the start of this new form of media isn't just a collection of magazine pages chopped into flash with a badly coded and embedded video stuck in just to fill the 'new media quota'.

I might be completely wrong. I kind of hope I am.


Film4.com Redesign

I love the Film 4 brand - it's really clean, direct and they know what they're doing with cross media promotion (events, social media, new talent, funding, etc). In fact I'd say they are the best in the current market. They had an enviable place to start though, being the baby brand of Channel 4 (a better designed and more accessible media outlet is hard to find), but have navigated the nightmare of crowded Freeview channels and EPG in a way which their sister channel E4 could never quite seem to manage. So respect due to the team there. The one thing that always let them down though was an unusable website - the UI was terrible, the hierarchies impossible to navigate, and, sad to say, their great branding lost in the sludge of bulky web copy. So, it was interesting to hear from Film4 towers that a redesign was afoot.
I have to admit to being a bit late to highlight this redesign, but like most things digital, your templates can be stunning...but two months in, does it still work and is it usable? Well, the answer is thankfully yes. Navigation is cleaner, TX data is clearer, and the brand finally stands out like it does on-air.

More to come...

Monday, 22 February 2010

No...no...it's definitely Alec Baldwin. I think.

I've been working with US entertainment press images for a long time now, and their photoshopping can be EPIC. This one is courtesy of NBC and is pretty typical. I was always taught to use Ps with a deft touch - the concept being that you'd inevitably see the subject of the photo in person/on stage/on screen at some point and they'd be unrecognisable. Which I'd consider bad PR...but then I gave in a long time ago trying to figure out what PRs actually do other than make me work late and miss deadlines... (ouch...)







A quick note

Craig has been my retoucher for a couple of years now and during that time has saved my arse on numerous occasions without charging me the earth (despite my obvious desperation). I think he's pretty much worked on every significant magazine cover I've directed or campaign I've looked after. A talented and hard working guy...I seem to remember ringing through a brief while he was rushing to the hospital to be at the birth of his son Cameron. Now THAT'S dedication to your art.


I should probably show you the 'before' image, but I can't be bothered...suffice to say it didn't have wings, the shirt was a different colour and pattern, it wasn't on a grey background, there was no halo or lipstick...



Channel 4 / 4Talent

One from the archives - and one I forgot about if I'm honest. I was asked a year or so ago to commit my thoughts / scribblings / hideous, dangerous mind to print by Catherine Bray at Channel 4 (@catherinebray) She believed people might be interested in my opinion and experiences of photography commissioning / Art Direction. Channel 4s funding dried up soon after and a recession fell upon the media...although Cat gained a promotion. So - mixed bag there. Probably nothing to do with my shoddy ramblings or drinking too much champagne at their awards doo though.
Anyway, enjoy. Apparently the Editor even liked it.



(RIP 4 Talent...you had good canapes and a winning tie-in with Taittinger)


Momentum Pictures / Viacom - Youth in Revolt Promo

Another quick job through my desk today for Momentum Pictures. Standard promotion stuff really - Leader, MPU, Skyscraper and Flashboxes - as part of a wider PR campaign. No idea if the film is much cop...didn't get to see a screener. Try my good/scary mate Jon - he might know. http://www.jonathancrocker.com/




South Park Studios / Barfly Campaign

If you see a poster in a bar with "SUCK MY BALLS!" on it next to a picture of Cartman, then that was my fault.
A much punchier message than the original clients brief - and more on brand too. Glad I managed to get it approved. A quick and easy lo-fi job for South Park's new season teasers (Season 14 premieres on 19th March). This one is combined with online and print and is in the style of the London Barfly venues, with a competition push for The Fly magazine. Think print and online 'fly-posters'. As ever, when two brands get sign-off on the creative, there's always a bit of friction...everyone wants their brand bigger than the other. So...multiple sign-offs and many emails, but thankfully painless and free of politics...thanks Barfly!