Left: Mary’s designer likes Photoshop. Right: The real Mary Davis (nothing wrong with looking yourself!)
There’s something about Mary...
A few months ago Reuters reported that cosmetics giant L’Oreal had some advertising banned in the UK for retouching supermodels... ‘Excessive airbrushing and digital manipulation techniques have become the norm’ says the article. If even the likes of Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington benefit from a little digital enhancement, why not our presidential candidates?
Of course there must be a limit. There's knowing when to Photoshop, and there's knowing when to stop. No one can blame candidates for leaving their, erm, baggage behind. But, if it becomes difficult to even recognise the young woman on the poster, is the design really serving the candidate?
Above: Design ‘anoraks’ will note the Davis Campaign (left) borrows Barrack Obama’s typographic style (right).
Taking a leaf from Mary's book, who else could benefit from some discreet ‘Photoshopping’?
- Martin Mc could pop himself into one of Nelson Mandela’s flamboyant shirts.
- Sean Gallagher could roll-with that hairdo from (cousin?) Noel Gallagher.
- Senator David Norris could do an impersonation of how he’ll look in Tussauds (oh wait, we didn’t Photoshop that one).
- Michael D could get the Gok Wan treatment...
- and no doubt there are ‘all kinds of things’ Dana could do, but time does not permit...
Who’s winning the battle of the brands?
Samar Birwadker of Landor writes about the successes and failures in the ongoing brand wars, as retailers continue to fight to take the added value which traditionally resided with the big name national brands. He finds that the big name brands are retaking some of their lost market share as the US economy begins to recover.
Although written from a US market perspective, this is an interesting analysis of progress in this ongoing struggle and there are many parallels here. Does this point to a future trend we’ll see on this side of the Atlantic? Read his article here...