Fuck you Fluevog! (a love letter)

Dear John,

I've had it. What the hell is it with your product? What the hell is it with your "oh-so-clever" marketing - targeted at freaks, geeks, nerds and dweebs? I mean, who would create an entire (immaculate) line of shoes named after bloody public-radio? Public radio? Really? Come on. No one listens to public radio these days. No one.

These are called BBCs. Apparently the BBC is some kinds of "news institution."

Who the hell to you think you are that you can just confiscate my hard-earned cash and force me, at virtual gunpoint, to apply it to something as impractical as a sixth pair of (Fluevog) shoes? In all earnestness - I'm an environmentalist - I don't need six pairs of (Fluevog) shoes. I didn't even need five pairs of (Fluevog) shoes. And because I'm a highly rational being, I'm blaming you, John, for your seemingly perfect understanding of your clients - me, obviously, being one of them. Now could you stop it? I'm running out of closet space.

As a rather petite woman with somewhat masculine sensibilities, shopping for anything - let alone footwear - can be tiresome. I cope, trust me - but only because I like a challenge and am as persistent as a mosquito at a Winnipeg garden party. However, unisex wear is rare and mostly not very fashionable - there is an unusual notion that the world between male and female is beige rolling sea of Pat-like sensible and sexless attire. You understand this as a ridiculous concept, John, recognizing instead that this very particular aesthetic space should just as easily be reserved for the fabulous -decidedly more Bowie than Pat. For that, I will hate you (until your next public radio shoe comes out. And then I will love you and throw hundreds of dollars at you. I know, it's confusing. Love can be that way).

It gets worse. As a pretty committed vegan who occasionally buys leather products if they are a) likely to last for a long time due to proper craftsmanship and a consideration to repair and/or b) from sustainable sources, e.g. used, waste or scrap leather - I would prefer to not have to have leather products. As a person who undertook veganism from an environmental standpoint, vegan shoes - often not very durable and/or made of petroleum products - are not always a more sustainable option, though they are, in theory, less cruel to produce. Of course, John, you make this simple - not only do you offer finely crafted leather shoes in fashionable, classic styles, which can be worn for years - but now you have a number of vegan and eco options.

Honestly. Just stop it. I can rationalize these kinds of purchases like it's nobody's business - shopping is almost a charitable act at this point. Damn you! What about consumerism, John? You are making it almost impossible to be anti-consumerist! There is no reason not to support your sweet blinking Canadian business. How do you sleep at night?

These dandy shoes fit men, women and VEGANS. WTF? (get out of my brain, John!)

I teach university students about positioning - and how many companies will sacrifice their position for growth, only to find that by straddling multiple markets they end up servicing the needs of no one particularly well and then resort to competing on price. This is a difficult concept for many business people to grasp. It's so tempting to think you can do it all - but you rarely can. We all want to feel special after all, so maintaining some kind of focus is key to a sustained competitive advantage. Clients become loyal to those that really want to service their particular needs and not doing so leaves room for someone else to jump right in and do just that.

Naturally, John, you are a master of positioning. For 40 years, you've successfully targeted a chronically under-serviced market of well-to-do oddballs at the expense of people who would rather not take the chance of looking a touch unusual. Oh yippy-skippy! Further, you seems to be deepening this relationship at every turn - suggesting a stellar understanding of your market. I assume this is because you are one of us, but I can't say that for sure, it's just a hunch. It's also because you want to hog our quantity-of-quality seeking dink dollars all to yourself, you inconsiderate jerk.

So congrats on getting to 40, as much as part of me hates you, I love to support Canadian businesses that are making responsible choices. May you have many years of continued success.

PS. Nice move on the sweet limited addition tie - another weakness of mine (naturally).  If only I hadn't blown far too much money on fistfuls of beautiful recycled bow ties last week.... but I'm sure you'll have no trouble unloading those little gems.

Advertisement and it's many sexisms.

As a bit of a follow up a few previous posts on gender and advertising, below is a short clip from the BBC comedy series "That Mitchell and Webb look." I find the dialog that ensues in the comments section interesting, especially the notion of "reverse" sexism through the use of stupid men in advertisement - which is something I've heard discussed in an intelligent fashion on Terry O'Reilly's Age of Persuasion.

O'Reilly mentions that the "why are men portrayed as morons, while women are portrayed as brilliant?" question in one of the most common posed to him as an ad expert. In the radio piece on this topic, he suggests that as women are the main consumer decision-makers in most households, depicting the women as the "comic foil" in an advertisement meant to sell products would constitute "biting the hand that feeds you." Further, as this remains a Man's World, it's simply funnier to see men as the butt of the joke, whereas it's not generally understood as funny to kick a (wo)man when s/he's down. Advertisers, in their creepily intense understanding of human psychology, get this and suggest that guys should just grow a pair and learn to deal with this mostly silly form of advertisement.

Comments on Terry's page with regards to his explanation behind this kind of "reverse" sexism, are still called "lame" by an astute/anonymous poster (who naturally provides no additional understanding of the topic). One thing not addressed in the piece, which I think is also important to point out, is how these ads in being humorous or silly, are in no way suggesting that men should start acting like morons - or that there would be some kind of advantage to this sort of moronic behavior. It acknowledges the power dynamic in the home by directing the advertisement to the women and makes a simple joke at the man in the advertisement's expense. While it may imply that men are morons, it's not suggesting that this is a good thing to be. This is in contrast with the kind of sexism generally directed towards women in advertisement, which tends to far more persuasive if not subtle and is often meant to encourage behavior change in women. Purchasing in this case comes from repeatedly pointing out supposed shortcomings in the target population and suggesting that the product in question can help one overcome these shortcomings. And it's this very point that this little bit of sketch comedy seems to really get.

The best of Target Women

The great thing about living in a 1,000 channel universe is the increased likelihood that there will be something worth watching on TV.  Most auspicious for us is the coming together of both a 1,000 channel universe and the internet age, meaning that in order to watch said "good TV", you don't really need a TV at all.

As evidence, I present you the best of "Target Women", a regular segment on infomania,  where comedian Sarah Haskins considers the often ridiculous way marketers and the media more generally "reach out" to women. Smart, sad and funny all at the same time.

Happy Valentines Day - you'll do.

This video never gets old to me. While I don't agree with all elements of psychologist Barry Schwartz's TED talk, it is compelling, and really worth contemplating - especially on such a commercial holiday such as Valentine's day.

I honestly think it's problematic to look for happiness in material objects. Perhaps it's the inevitable failure of the hunt for happiness in such objects that leads to the proliferation of them - if at first you don't succeed, try try again, I suppose. But I don't think people were more successful in finding satisfaction or happiness at an earlier time due to less choice, but rather perhaps they were not so distracted by material pursuits and were better to appreciate those things which did bring them a sense of well being or happiness - friends, family, purpose etc.