<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: anthropology and the new branding: Kleenex for good and bad</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html</link>
	<description>This Blog Sits At the Intersection of Anthropology and Economics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 20:32:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ricardo Amaral</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2223</link>
		<dc:creator>Ricardo Amaral</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2223</guid>
		<description>Talking about Asians, the Let it Out campaign in Asia is much more powerful than its American counterpart.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Talking about Asians, the Let it Out campaign in Asia is much more powerful than its American counterpart.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Inaudible Nonsense (DC1974)</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2222</link>
		<dc:creator>Inaudible Nonsense (DC1974)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:43:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2222</guid>
		<description>Forget the trademarking of &quot;let it out&quot; -- that is onerous of course and also ridiculous -- but I&#039;m more concerned about that word &quot;pleasure&quot; there&#039;s a little dissonance there. Apparently, watching other people cry is giving us pleasure. (At least to Kleenex.) There are shades of the emotional performance of reality TV in this -- that we are supposed to be enjoying this from home. That &quot;real&quot; emotion is more pleasurable than traditional forms of happy entertainment. One thing I always here from my Asian friends is the belief that Americans are not very empathetic -- evidenced by our inability to cry and our assertiveness. Being told to find pleasure in other people&#039;s pain is an equal sign of our lack of empathy. And its either really assertive on the viewers part or at least passive-aggressive. Everything about this campaign sounded interesting, until I read that copy. And then the whole thing just stank.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Forget the trademarking of &#8220;let it out&#8221; &#8212; that is onerous of course and also ridiculous &#8212; but I&#8217;m more concerned about that word &#8220;pleasure&#8221; there&#8217;s a little dissonance there. Apparently, watching other people cry is giving us pleasure. (At least to Kleenex.) There are shades of the emotional performance of reality TV in this &#8212; that we are supposed to be enjoying this from home. That &#8220;real&#8221; emotion is more pleasurable than traditional forms of happy entertainment. One thing I always here from my Asian friends is the belief that Americans are not very empathetic &#8212; evidenced by our inability to cry and our assertiveness. Being told to find pleasure in other people&#8217;s pain is an equal sign of our lack of empathy. And its either really assertive on the viewers part or at least passive-aggressive. Everything about this campaign sounded interesting, until I read that copy. And then the whole thing just stank.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carol Gee</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2221</link>
		<dc:creator>Carol Gee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 06:00:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2221</guid>
		<description>Grant, your post engendered thoughts of Senator Hillary Clinton&#039;s &quot;moment&quot; of emotion that caused such consternation in the mainstream media.  I have this weird second thought that Kleenex should give a donation to her campaign for her boost of their product.
Great post.  It always pleases me, BTW, when you credit real people for good work.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Grant, your post engendered thoughts of Senator Hillary Clinton&#8217;s &#8220;moment&#8221; of emotion that caused such consternation in the mainstream media.  I have this weird second thought that Kleenex should give a donation to her campaign for her boost of their product.<br />
Great post.  It always pleases me, BTW, when you credit real people for good work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick Liebling</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2220</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick Liebling</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2008 04:38:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2220</guid>
		<description>srp,
While you are correct to point out that commercials often position products as solutions to problems (you pointed out many fine examples), the Kleenex ads seem to be celebrating the &#039;problem&#039;, suggesting that a runny nose or teary eyes are in fact a good thing. That seems to me to be a slightly different positioning. It is perhaps a cousin to a what a Gatorade ad would be - working out is good for you, drink Gatorade afterwards. Only the Kleenex ad is hitting at a more emotional level, and I would therefore argue a more powerful level.
Full disclosure: I work for Taylor, a public relations firm that works with Kleenex, though we were not involved in the conception or filming of the ad.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>srp,</p>
<p>While you are correct to point out that commercials often position products as solutions to problems (you pointed out many fine examples), the Kleenex ads seem to be celebrating the &#8216;problem&#8217;, suggesting that a runny nose or teary eyes are in fact a good thing. That seems to me to be a slightly different positioning. It is perhaps a cousin to a what a Gatorade ad would be &#8211; working out is good for you, drink Gatorade afterwards. Only the Kleenex ad is hitting at a more emotional level, and I would therefore argue a more powerful level.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: I work for Taylor, a public relations firm that works with Kleenex, though we were not involved in the conception or filming of the ad.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: srp</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2219</link>
		<dc:creator>srp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2219</guid>
		<description>Peter: Grant once wrote something about &quot;displaced meaning&quot; that comes very close to what you are suggesting.
In general, though, ads, especially of the unique selling proposition type, often show negative things--that&#039;s the problem the product is supposed to solve. Remember &quot;ring around the collar?&quot; or &quot;I can&#039;t believe I ate the whole thing?&quot; Or, on a more contemporary note, Career Builder showing the poor guy who has to work with chimps, Charles Schwab showing people bitching about their brokers, Southwest Airlines showing people in excruciatingly embarrassing situations from which they &quot;wanna get away?&quot; It seems to me that there isn&#039;t anything very new here.
It is true that ads are typically squeamish about displaying bodily functions, hence all the beakers of colored water poured through absorbing layers as demonstrations. Or the stylized Flomax representations of the urinary tract. Since I appreciate that squeamishness, I&#039;m not sure I want to watch people dumping nasal mucous into their Kleenex and I hope these ads stress the crying part of letting it out.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter: Grant once wrote something about &#8220;displaced meaning&#8221; that comes very close to what you are suggesting.</p>
<p>In general, though, ads, especially of the unique selling proposition type, often show negative things&#8211;that&#8217;s the problem the product is supposed to solve. Remember &#8220;ring around the collar?&#8221; or &#8220;I can&#8217;t believe I ate the whole thing?&#8221; Or, on a more contemporary note, Career Builder showing the poor guy who has to work with chimps, Charles Schwab showing people bitching about their brokers, Southwest Airlines showing people in excruciatingly embarrassing situations from which they &#8220;wanna get away?&#8221; It seems to me that there isn&#8217;t anything very new here.</p>
<p>It is true that ads are typically squeamish about displaying bodily functions, hence all the beakers of colored water poured through absorbing layers as demonstrations. Or the stylized Flomax representations of the urinary tract. Since I appreciate that squeamishness, I&#8217;m not sure I want to watch people dumping nasal mucous into their Kleenex and I hope these ads stress the crying part of letting it out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://cultureby.com/2008/01/the-new-brandin.html/comment-page-1#comment-2218</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 04:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wp_culture/?p=358#comment-2218</guid>
		<description>The always-cheery nature of most advertising led me (and no doubt others before me) to decide that western advertising was the capitalist equivalent of socialist realist art -- ie, advertising is capitalist realism.  Like its soviet counterpart, it portrays an ideal world, disconnected from almost everything experienced by its viewers.  Of course, being disconnnected from reality does not in itself prevent something being believed wholeheartedly, or even being used as a guide for living.   Perhaps myths have to be false in order to be believed, since if they were completely true they could not provide their adherents with any hope.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The always-cheery nature of most advertising led me (and no doubt others before me) to decide that western advertising was the capitalist equivalent of socialist realist art &#8212; ie, advertising is capitalist realism.  Like its soviet counterpart, it portrays an ideal world, disconnected from almost everything experienced by its viewers.  Of course, being disconnnected from reality does not in itself prevent something being believed wholeheartedly, or even being used as a guide for living.   Perhaps myths have to be false in order to be believed, since if they were completely true they could not provide their adherents with any hope.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

