Grant McCracken is pessimistic about Target's ability to build their brand around the concept of "good design," as exemplified in their latest television ad, an element of their Design for All campaign. He writes:
Brands routinely seek to claim a cultural meaning: Marboro [sic] and the great outdoors, Pepsi and youthful irreverence, Gillette’s Venus and the goddess. Usually these meanings are well marked and well known. The transfer of meaning from culture to brand depends upon perfectly [sic] clarity here. The cultural meaning was well defined.
But the notion of design that Target wants to claim is not well defined. It is in fact a little obscure...
So the Target campaign has to do two things at once. It must fashion (more exactly, refashion) the notion of design, and then claim it for the brand. This is a little like building a suspension bridge as you cross it. It is not impossible. Ah, yes, come to think of it, it is impossible. Never mind. Target, bless them, will try.
After reading Grant's post, I found the ad and watched it--it's beautifully done and quite effective--and I thought Grant was being too conservative. Then I clicked through the ad's page to what appears to be a home page for the Design for All campaign. Utterly baffling Flash twaddle that did nothing to pique my interest or open my wallet. I started to think Grant might be on to something.
I'm not ready to give up on Target--they're riding the wave that Virginia Postrel, among others, sees washing over our consumer culture, creating countless business opportunities in its wake. People are clearly more interested in design, and they will pay to scratch that itch. Target's ambitious effort to associate their brand with DESIGN writ large is a big bet, and it could pay off handsomely. But if Grant's right, it could be too abstract, too vague to communicate effectively with consumers.
It's a delicate balance. After seeing the TV ad, I thought Target had found just the right tone--I wasn't sure exactly what they were selling (to Grant's point), but I was interested in buying it anyway. But after digging further into the site, their own apparent confusion left me confused--and annoyed--and that's no way to treat a customer.
2 Responses
You defend Grant's point - "I wasn't sure exactly what they were selling..."
But really, do we every buy THINGS any more (outside of commodities)? Consumer culture has shifted entirely. We by moods, lifestyles, emotions. If we need a THING, we go to Costco. If we want SOMEthing, we go to the place that speaks to our sense of selves.
I think the website was a tough navigation, but it's a minute part of the overall bradning effort. They flubbed it, but the rest of this style campaign is brilliant.
(Still giggle whenever I read this blog!)
Hey, aren't you supposed to be working?
You're absolutely right that "when we want SOMEthing, we go to the place that speaks to our sense of selves." Well said. And as Postrel makes clear, increasing numbers of consumers are finding THEIR sense of self in good design--in objects or user experiences that please their aesthetic sensibilities.
The big bet that Target's making is that their brand can encompass the ENTIRE idea of good design, in a very abstract way. It's brilliant, IF they can pull it off.
But my point about the website wasn't to say, "Look--they dropped the ball!" It's that their inability to translate just what they mean by good design to a primed, motivated, interested website user (I just looked up and watched their ad, fer chrissakes!) suggests to me that there might be a larger problem--they may not even KNOW what they mean by good design. That's what makes me think McCracken might be on to something.
I make you giggle? < pesci >Am I a clown? Do I amuse you?< /pesci > Heh.