Here’s something fun to work on if you have a few minutes – and interest in earning a few bucks.

On Friday, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) posted an invitation to contractors to submit designs for a new “Art Works” logo.  You can download your own copy of the RFP off our site or from the NEA’s site.  The open period for questions (best asked after you’ve reviewed the RFP) ends at 5pm (EST) on Wednesday, February 10.  All material must be summited to the NEA for review no later than 5pm (EST) on Friday, February 26, 2010.

To be honest, this release caught my eye because NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman announced the competition at a Miami-area high school for art and architecture and I immediately thought it was a student competition.  I have an 18 year-0ld, aspiring designer and thought it would be a great opportunity for him to stretch his creative muscles and maybe pick up a buck or two.

Then I saw the government’s estimated budget for this project.

$25,000.

For a logo.

Wow.  Talk about your stimulus package.

Now, it’s important to note that the NEA did say in their RFP that its award would not be made “on the basis of a superior capability without consideration of the amount of its price.”  That is to say, “price does matter.”  But seriously, when you say you’ve got a $25,000 budget – who’s going to come in much under $20k?  In fact, when you dig into the RFP (page 23), you find that price carries just 5% of the total evaluation’s weight.  Technical evaluation is 70% and the remaining 25% depends on “management evaluation criteria” – or, can the image be produced in print and online in both black-and-white and color.

Seriously.

The assignment is to produce a graphic identity for the phrase “Art Works” which, to Chairman Landesman and the rest of the NEA, mean these three things:

1. “Art Works” as a noun that refers to the works of art that artists create;
2. “Art Works” as a reminder that a goal fo art is to work on audiences and viewers to inspire, transport and challenge them; and
3. “Art Works” as a reminder that arts workers are real workers who are part of this country’s real economy.

That’s all well and fine.  But “Art Works” isn’t exactly a new phrase and there are already some executions of it out there.  As an aide to all designers thinking of entering this free-for-all, here’s what I was able to find in about ten minutes of searching:

Good luck.

by Mike Bawden
President & CEO; Brand Central Station

It’s funny to me how we sometimes try to make a point in the virtual world and it winds up boomerranging back and hitting us in the face here in the real one.

A few days ago, I wrote a post about how young Americans don’t buy the “Buy American” argument just because doing so will keep US greenbacks in US bank accounts (a concept that, in itself, could be debated). Instead, I suggested that the “Buy American” argument would have more sway with young people if it was presented as an evironmentally-oriented message. Buy products made here because they have a smaller carbon footprint, so even if they cost more (dollars) they cost less (environmental impact).

An old college buddy I haven’t seen in 25 years – no kidding – but recently reconnected with (via Facebook) took a look at the article and gave me an interesting perspective. Gary Cantwell, the VP of Communications and Marketing at Trinity International University, went to college with me back in the 1980′s. After correcting a few typo’s in my post (the wasy of old editors die hard, I suppose), Gary shared his 17-year old son’s perspective on the future:

… he is very interested in working in China after college. He sees China as the best place for economic growth in the years to come. With the healthy skepticism that many of us feel towards our own government (especially with the increased government involvement in free enterprise that seems to be creeping in), China appears to him as a wide-open free-market field of opportunity (Go East, young man!). So, he absolutely has no sense of responsibility to buy American.

This is an interesting perspective in that we are very conservative, fiscally, politically and socially. He sees no inconsistency in his perspective. He can be fully Christian, fully American and still look forward to moving to China to work. He lives in a much more globally aware world than we were raised in.

Now I have business partners in China (they’re in the PR business in Beijing via ECCO) and I think Gary’s son will have an eye-opening experience when he sees the difference between what we perceive to be “government intervention” in business and the way business is done in China. But what a great experience it can be.

On the other hand, I think Gary’s point that young people like his son (and mine) have no “sense of responsibility” to buy American just because the products are made here is right on.

This youngest generation has, thanks in large part to the Internet and other media, more of a sense of responsibility to their planet. They are the first “global generation” and there’s good – and probably bad (for America, anyway) – that comes with that new-found perspective.

It seems like a little side article in this week’s Adweek, but it caught my attention.

Mark Dolliver reported on the findings of a “Buy American” study recently completed by AdweekMedia/Harris Research. The survey indicates that although there is an ever-present interest among US consumers for American-made products, there is a definite drop off as you get into the younger demographics. As Mark reports:

Younger consumers are less susceptible than their elders to a made-in-America sales pitch. Thirty-nine percent of the survey’s 18-34-year-olds said they’re more likely to buy a product when an ad emphasizes that it’s made in America, vs. 60 percent of the 35-44-year-olds, 68 percent of the 45-54s and 74 percent of those 55 and older.

So what does this actually mean? I think it could mean two things:

First off, I believe we’re seeing the “internationalization” of American youth with the rest of the world. More kids are travelling to far away places, they’re connecting with friends in other parts of the world via the Internet and the media they see shows a more diverse culture than the “good old days” of white bread, mainstream, American media. And, quite frankly, I think those are good things.

The fact is that America exists in a world where we have to co-exist with over 190 other nations – each with their own interests, problems and geopolitical concerns. The sooner we realize we’re competing in a global economy, the better.

The second thing these survey results tell us, though, is that marketers aren’t going beyond the obvious, patriotic appeal with their “Buy American” pitch. Young consumers don’t see a great value in patriotic loyalty to an American brand if they don’t see a substantial quality or price difference. The argument that buying American brands keeps American workers employed is harder for this younger generation to buy when Toyotas and Hondas are being manufactured in the United States and for most of them, an American job means working the register at Wal-Mart.

No, marketers need to find another reason to make buying American products appealing to young Americans and I think the answer is simple – it’s better for the environment (or, at least, it should be). The logic is so simple, it’s obvious why most marketers don’t use it: if you don’t have to ship a product across the ocean to bring it to market, you use less energy and its carbon footprint is smaller.

The green appeal to buying American may hold a greater sway with the younger generations of Americans than any attempt to teach civics via :30 commercials.

Not that we all couldn’t do with a refresher course in American Civics. But that’s another post on a different blog.

After posting my piece on Consumer 2.0, I received a Tweet from one of my friends on Twitter.

@BrandCentral – Consumers need to make companies stop taking us for granted.  We are your source of income – respect us, dangnabbit!

Not only did I find the Tweet to be interesting because I hadn’t seen “dangnabbit” spelled out in a while, but the sentiment of the post was indicative of a larger problem I see brewing for marketers in the future.  ”Engagement” is a big word circulating through the marketing universe at this time, but in reality, engagement requires two-way interactions between parties. Real interaction is built on a foundation of mutual respect.

And according to my informal survey of one and a just-released study of the nation’s political climate conducted by BIGresearch, Americans are feeling a little disrespected on all levels.

According to BIGresearch (via the American Pulse(TM) Survey), 57.6% of Americans say they don’t have a voice anymore in what’s coming out of Washington.  In a release from BIGresearch:

In a government with a Democratic stronghold, it’s surprising that 42.8% of people who consider themselves of the Democratic Party don’t think they are being heard on Capitol Hill. 74.5% of Republicans and 63.8% of Independents feel the same.

31.6% of Americans believe the U.S. Government controls their financial future and congressional leaders may want to hear this, because 43.4% of respondents feel they have lost control of their personal monetary prospects. 46.8% of Americans say they hold the key to their own financial future.

So what connection can be made between the feelings of Americans as consumers and as members of the greater, political/social fabric?  Here are a few things to consider:

1. Americans are undergoing a significant change in stature on the global economic stage.  During the consumption-crazed 80′s, 90′s and early 2000′s; Americans were pretty convinced we were unasailable.  With preeminence comes hubris and the eventual fall from grace is bound to hurt – whether it’s egos or economies.
2. Any crash hurts more when it occurs at high speeds.  We have technology to thank for an over-heightened sensativity to minutiea that might otherwise go by un-noticed.  Add to that the fact that all the noise created by our various media now chokes out the possibilities of creating national concensus through just a few, commonly-held forums.
3. Businesses, operating under a 19th century economic paradigm that you could call almost imperialistic, have focused so much on growth and scale that their leadership doesn’t always see a problem with taking billions of dollars in bail-out money with one hand while paying out millions in bonuses to executives with the other.
4. And probably most important, at least from my perspective.  As we’ve all become more consumed with managing all the new information, opportunities and demands on our time, we’ve seemed to drop the ball on civility, mutual respect and compassion.  The result has been the development of an “iPod Culture” where we’re all too busy listening to our own playlist to really talk with each other any more.

In short, we’ve lost respect for each other.

The good news, though, is that with the possiblity of change amped up on terrabytes of information and energy drinks they way it is, we can make things better.  It’s that fundamentally “American” value of hopefullness that has driven generations before and will continue to drive us forward.

It’s behind why some people voted for Barack Obama and others participated in Tea Parties.  It’s why there are still thousands of us who are still Cubs fans.

And as long as we have hope, there’s always a chance we’ll find respect again and share it.

But what is the “upside” to an Obama administration as viewed by those people not living in the USA? We took a moment to ask some of our partners in the ECCO International Public Relations Network – all owners or managers of small and mid-sized public relations or marketing consultancies. What they told us was insightful, especially for those US-based brands who rely on exports to buoy sales revenues when the going gets tough at home.

The first question we asked related to the impact the current administration (under George W. Bush) may have had on the prestige of US brands sold abroad. The answers were as varied as the countries represented by the respondents:

“The image of American products is not connected to the existing American government or President in the mind of Hungarians” explained Zsuzsanna Takacs of S.T. Scope in Budapest, Hungary.

“Yes, I believe so,” explained Didier Lagae from Marco de Comunicacion with offices in Barcelona and Madrid. “Generic sentiment towards the US was pretty bad with Bush.”

Christian Kollmann, MD of Communication Matters in Vienna, Austria disagreed: “People in Austria didn’t change their consumption behavior towards US products during the last eight years. The fact that some American products have been so cheap (due to the exchange rate) has had much more influence than the question of who is sitting in the White House.”

Our partner in Copenhagen, Denmark agreed with Mr. Kollmann: “I do not think American products suffered under the Bush regime.” Lars Ludvigsen, of PR Partner, elaborated on this statement: “But the reputation and perhaps the view of Americans has.”

While the personal approval or disapproval of President Bush may not have had a direct impact on the perceived value of American brands, Gunnar Angeltveit of CCN in Norway did note that US products have a low standing in his country. “The main reason … is the low innovation rate and quality issues.”

Michael Zuhkle, at Relatio-PR in Germany, said that after talking things over with his colleagues in Munich it was clear that “There will be a change (in how) German people will look at American products.” Mr. Zuhkle continued: “People did not rely on the promises of (President) Bush. IF the promises (of President-elect) Obama will come true, there will be a bigger confidence in America and thereby American companies and products, too.”

From a different part of Germany, Heike Lange (of PRGS in Frankfurt) disagreed: “The majority of Germans neither look differently at American products right now, nor were they influenced in their consumer (preferences) by their personal attitude towards George W. Bush.

So what impact will the ascendance of Barack Obama have on American goods and brands sold overseas? The general sense is little to no immediate impact commercially, but the long-term effect on US prestige and standing in the world does matter.

Rita Platzer, MD of RPPR in Stockholm, Sweden summed it up this way: “People will look at American products in a new, more positive way. (President-elect Obama) stands for something new, young and modern.”

Mr. Lagae echoed those sentiments by explaining how a President Obama would make the US more “likeable” and, as a result, “that is sure to reflect on its iconic products and brands.”

“The American lifestyle … are an integral part of our lifestyle,” said Mr. Ludvigsen. “Denmark has been very friendly towards the USA during the past 20 years. This means we did not consider to become less allied with the US, even with (President) Bush in command.”

The history of strong US-UK ties plays an important role in Sara Render’s take on the impact of the Obama election as well.  Ms. Render is the Managing Director of Kinross + Render, based in London: “Although some people will feel more comfortable about supporting US foreign policy … a boycott of US companies amongst minority groups becomes less likely.”  Ms. Render continued, saying “This is a very pro-US country where the old bonds arising from the US support in World War II are still recognized.”

“Let’s hope that CHANGE really happens,” wrote Fred Howald, principal of Howald & Partner PR in Bern, Switzerland. Things should get better for US brands because “the image of the US has dramatically improved.”

A more pragmatic tone was sounded by Elina Kivi of Imageneering in Helsinki, Finland. “The election of Barack Obama makes no difference in the opinion of the USA here in Finland. (Finns) are very well informed of political issues in the USA. They understand that the President of the USA can not change anything immediately.”

“Things can only get better,” explained Lutz Cleffmann, from ECCO-Duesseldorf, Germany. “American companies will benefit from that. Tourism will profit the most from the change as a lot of people didn’t travel to the USA although it was incredibly cheap.”

Ms. Lange from Frankfurt seemed to underscore Mr. Cleffmann’s comments: “A lot will depend upon President-elect Obama and his handling of the international crises. Reassurance of consumers and investors is crucial.”

But putting it best was Geerd Schlangen, a partner with Bex*Communicatie in The Netherlands who summed up the entire situation as follows:

The election of Obama will not impact our appreciation of (American) products. What it will impact, however, is the way we see America – back again as a responsible partner in the global arena and no longer the representative of big oil, big energy, big weapons and big debt. The USA must mobilize its positive energy (and) join the world in solving problems in sustainability, fair trade, fighting poverty, etc. The only country that can make a global change come true is the USA – and you’ll need the rest of the world, too.

(President-elect) Obama has the appeal and qualities to lead this change. It will be a hard, long and tough journey. First for the USA and then for the rest of the world.

Our hopes are on the USA again.

Here’s to not letting the rest of the world down.

The SNL alum had the nerve (along with her cohorts) to call out the mainstream media and seriously question their objectivity on the Obama vs Clinton primary battle for the Democratic nomination for President.  It does seem the media has been taking it easy on Mr. Obama and the SNL folks don’t seem to like it much at all.  (View Fey’s editorial rant here.)

There’s more to review by visiting a blog set up to provide the video YouTube won’t show.  Give it a look (here) and let me know what you think.

Over the last few election cycles, it’s been late night television that has offered the most revealing insights into the Presidential candidates.  Whether it’s Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno or SNL, the candidates have been willing to “let their hair down” and give people a look at something other than the overly-polished cliches they become on the stump.

Of course, there are dangers in doing this kind of thing.  Dennis Kucinich appeared on the Steven Colbert show and had to empty his pockets and Mike Huckabee’s appearance on the same show eventually lead to a battle royal between Conan O’Brien, Stewart and Colbert that could only be politely called “unique” in the anals of late night, talk television (misspelling intended).

But this Obama love-fest as exploited by SNL has taken everything up notch.  Last weekend, SNL was openly critical of NBC’s own news division.  And that after Brian Williams turned in a good showing as a guest host.  Doesn’t seem very fair or objective, does it?  Then again, I guess that Fox News’ standing gag line, isn’t it.

Laura Ries offers some worthwhile evaluations of celebrity endorsements enjoyed by Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  You don’t have to be a political wonk to enjoy her post.

From a marketing perspective, many of the lessons taught through this endorsement excercise carry over to consumer products and services.  A celebrity endorsement isn’t worth that much if the celebrity doesn’t really understand the “what” and “why” of the brand he or she is endorsing. 

One-dimensional product pitchmen, even if they’re well-known sports or entertainment celebrities, can elicit the same response Laura has about Cheer’s star Ted Danson: “Does anyone care what Ted Danson has to say? I don’t think so.”

I’m a jazz fan (huge) and was pleased to see us get one over on all the other genres in the musical world.  After all, two AotY Grammies in 50 years is hardly a Patriot-style dynasty now, is it? 

Hancock ended his acceptance speech with a little tip of the hat to Barack Obama by claiming “Yes, We Can” to close.  And that’s when the announcer came on and explained that Barack Obama had won his second Grammy, beating out Bill Clinton in the “spoken word” category.

To tell the truth, I wasn’t even aware that Barack Obama had won a Grammy before or that he and Bill Clinton were nominated for a Grammy this year.  Apparently, Barack and Bill were facing stiff competition from Maya Angelou and Alan Alda.  Fortunately for Obama, Dr. Angelou didn’t play on her friendship with Oprah and Alda’s stint as a Republican presidential contender on The West Wing probably doomed him from the start.

But all kidding aside, what is so amusing about this pointless bit of drama is that it has been so completely covered by the foreign press.  There are articles online about it from India, China and more than 200 other newspapers and web sites around the world.  To me, this points out two major points we should keep in mind this coming election cycle:

• The rest of the world cares what happens in the US election.  Americans, for the most part, don’t know (or care) about elections in other countries.  We assume that since we lead the way in most of the things we’re really good at that we certainly should be setting the gold standard for apathy.  Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way.  We live in a world where one misstep by a US president or hiccup in our stock market can wreck havoc elsewhere in the world.  As a result, everyone wants to know what we’re up to.

• Secondly, the democratic race for president is sublimely entertaining because (whether she wants him in it or not), Bill Clinton is involved.  No matter what you might think about him, the Clinton presidency is viewed by many outside of the US as a more “enlightened” period prior to the Bush administration.  No matter how we may view the late 90′s domestically, the international community has generally good feelings about the Clinton-era.

What strikes me as most interesting about all this, though, is that as Americans, we’re in the process of selecting a new steward for our national brand.  I just hope the candidates in the running don’t forget the essential formula to creating brand equity:

Promises made x promises kept = positive brand equity

It’s not just about making the promises, it’s about seeing them through to fruition.

Although what I write here is derived primarily from my own observations of life and culture here in the USA, I imagine that to one extent or another, these observations also hold true in much of the Americas. You see, with very few exceptions, almost everyone who lives in the Americas is related to someone who came from somewhere else (i.e. another country outside of the Americas).

And confronted with a harsh, if not downright hostile, natural environment and limited consumable resources, our ancestors had to learn to rely on one another to maintain their existence. Later generations of immigrants to the Americas faced similar challenges – although the times and problems were different.

As generations passed and cultures layered themselves one atop the other, a synthesis occurred (and is still happening). This multi-cultural synthesis is rich in its diversity and sometimes painful in its own, inner conflict. But it’s part of what makes this place so unique and so creative. Without the layering of cultures, the world would not have jazz, the tradition of a free press, publicly funded school systems or the Internet.

Creativity is not always a quiet, little process that results in a beautiful painting or ingenious new idea. In fact, creativity is often violent and conflicted. Nowhere else but in the culture of America is that better demonstrated.

While cultural conflicts aren’t necessarily a pretty thing – many times the resolution to that conflict is.

America’s diversity as a nation has contributed and will continue to drive its spirit of creativity and innovation. Conflicts, or at least the threat of conflict, will force people to see things they may not normally want to see – and, most importantly, the threat of conflict will inspire a select few to find a resolution.

Cultures adapt over time. America’s blend of cultures means we’re often adapting in fits and starts. Sometimes ahead. Sometimes behind. It’s a beat that sounds like a different drummer to those who are not familiar with our country or how we cope with change. But it is our drummer.

To each, a beat of his own.

Technorati Tags: Marketing, Advertising, B2B Marketing, Ethnic Advertising, Minority Marketing, Client Management, Leadership, Creative Thinking, Culture, Cultural Diversity

(c) 2006 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.

It can’t come as much of a surprise that creativity and innovation are native to the American culture. After all, when our forefathers landed in this country, they had very little in the way of assets with them and all the resource of North America with which to work. Since then, the application of wit and creativity to resources has paid off handsomely.

Creativity was a contributing factor to the survival of the early settlers in the American continent, too. With large, natural barriers like the Mississippi River, Great Plains and Rocky Mountains before them, pioneers had to create their own methods to overcome these natural features. To fail meant certain death or starvation.

And so it goes that in a land where you had to create and make what you needed to survive, a culture that embraced creativity and innovation was born. A history of innovation in America can be found here.

Today we find communities investing in venture capital centers (like this one in my home town). Community leaders have decided that it’s actually in the public’s interest to continue fostering innovation, with the hope that one of these start-up ventures will become the next Microsoft.

Technorati Tags: Marketing, Advertising, Branding, Brand, Leadership, Client Management, Innovation, Creative Thinking

(c) 2006 – Brand Central Station, all rights reserved. For more information on Brand Central Station, please visit our website.