The role of image in a postmodern society.
You may have been wondering, “how far into 2008 will we get before Adrian writes about postmodernism?” Not long. However, this is more of a companion to today’s earlier post.
Like many others, I’ve stared in horror at some of Grey Goose’s latest advertising. In watching it, I feel as if I’ve drifted back to the 80s, it’s surprisingly lacking in any kind of value for me as a viewer – purposely so because it’s role is to create an image for Grey Goose.
It’s exactly this that makes this advertising so ineffective IMO, because image is both far more complex and far less relevant in today’s world. I talked about this in a presentation I gave last year at the Polygamous Marriage conference. Because we’re bombarded by bits and pieces of different, remixed, fused ideas all the time, we’re much less concerned with the image of things and much more concerned with the meaning of things. The meaning of the Grey Goose advertising is sadly absent.
This is not to say that image can’t or shouldn’t be crafted by marketers. However, it takes far more nuance than it used to. In fact, I’d (not surprisingly) argue that image is created more through what you do than what you say. This lends more substantiation to marketers taking on broader roles. Even if your only goal is changing or creating image – communications aren’t the only or even best tool.