TAG. WHO'S IT?

Confused about the sell by and use by labels on grocery foodstuffs?  As well as the “I’m all natural” claims?

Rest assured.  You’re not alone. 

According to a recent Consumer Reports survey, nearly 2/3rds of respondents believe, for instance, that ‘natural’ implies the item is a better food and that it contains no artificial ingredients, chemicals, pesticides, or GMOs.  It’s food that is simple, less processed, and genuine (whatever that means).

Wrong.

Why?

The US Food & Drug Administration hasn’t defined it yet.

Which, of course, got us to thinking:  What about the labels we in the marketing and communications biz blithely toss around, like logo and tag line and slogan and campaign and … ?  Do our key audiences (for example, the C-suite) really understand what we’re talking about – and are we all on the same page?  And do all our labels result in further confusing the folks we’re trying to reach – and persuade?

You get our drift.  Obviously, we apply labels to simplify a complex world.  The words and phrases we use to describe things and ideas, according to a 1930s’ linguist (and proven true for decades and decades after), actually determine what we see.  Think of it as a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

Twizzlers is a low-fat snack.  Natural cheese is simply that, without cellulose powder to keep it from sticking.

So is time to clear up our own noise – and, perhaps, set a great example for the manufacturers of this world?

QUIX PIX = CHAT STAT

It had to happen.

Brands are getting into the emoji business, big time.

These graphics, originally created to add context to text, now live by themselves.  Ford promoted its latest Focus with ‘em.  Unilever’s Dove just rolled out a series of curly-haired faces, customizable by skin tone and hair color.  Domino’s uses its visual as a way to text an order. 

Entrepreneurs are making the most of this emo-design, from a 2013 “translated” edition of Moby Dick housed in the Library of Congress (yeah, called Emoji Dick) to software that suggests emoji as you type.

What’s more, e-statistics are seductive.  As is the psychology behind these hieroglyphics.  Like these:

  • The richer the array of emotions, the happier and healthier the users.
  • People who use emoticons are more popular and influential than those who don’t.
  • Children today recognize corporate logos before they can read.

Now, speaking through pictures is, in short, an almost necessary adjunct to our social media conversations.  Plain language doesn’t cut it anymore.

Perhaps we need to blame Paul Rand who created a rebus of the IBM logo (think:  eye-bee-M).  Or networks like Facebook and Instagram that thrive on communicating in cartoons.  Even Apple which, late last month, announced its first emoji with a cause – against cyber-bullying. 

We have zip against winkies and smileys.  Certainly, as visual communicators, we can’t complain about the explosion of new pictures.  What we miss, really and truly, are the conversations between people, among groups, that rely on faces and sounds and tones and gestures to communicate.