Communication is everywhere. We may first think of formal media - like the one you're reading now - but everything has the ability to send messages that help us make meaning from our world.


Here you'll read about the myriad ways people transmit, receive and interact with information in all aspects of our lives. So drop in, and hang out for a spell. Better still, join the conversation: submit your comment using the "Comments" link at the end of each post.


Want to communicate with Michelle or SimplyRead?


__________________________________________________________________________________

Gone fishin'!



I figure this photo pretty much sums up why I'm taking an indefinite hiatus from CITEM. In sum, I don't want to do it the injustice of my being too busy to give it the quality I'm aiming for (and that readers deserve).

If you've read my last few posts, you know I'm on a full-time, onsite contract in a marketing role. And you know I have a three-year-old. Between one and the other, I am just plumb "out of words" by the end of each day. Then on the weekend, I'm truly gone fishin'. I'm sure many of you in temperate climates can relate to that, with the summer so short.

Plus, I'm starting another blog for awhile, hoping to further explore the topic of how to manage the plethora of packaging, defective products and other single-use items we in North America are barraged with. It's my own little attempt to get people thinking about how they can re-use -- or, to sound hipper, "re-purpose" -- much of the stuff that otherwise sits around in our closets or ends up as so much landfill.

Watch this space to take a ride on a new train of thought

If you care about this kind of thing, and liked my stuff about brands and packaging, watch this space for news of my new venture into the blogosphere. With the working name of "Reuseit" (which yes we now know is being used at the City of Toronto), it will provide practical advice for re-using and conserving pretty much every product or package you can think of. And I hope the info will be delivered with just the right amount of humour and friendliness to get people returning.

And like this blog, it will be more enriched as others add their ideas.

Blog guilt and off on a tangent...


OK, now there's a cool, self-reflexive thing to have happen &emdash; I have come back to edit this post a day later, and now the Blogger system has kindly let me back into the title field.

If I had been speaking, it would have been like stopping in the middle of a sentence, then having suddenly been triggered to continue speaking a day later - the software has, in effect, allowed me to complete my thought...scary, or maybe just for me who likely thinks about these things far too often for the average bear.

It also means that some of my rantings below are a tad deflated, I guess. But maybe you'll find something interesting nonetheless in my fatigue-inspired rambling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[July 10 original post]
OK - first I must say there's been a technical difficulty: I began to write the title, and was then kicked out of the Title box, unable to click into it. Grrrr. Just shows how 'emancipating technology' sometimes traps us into saying things we didn't mean to.

I wrote a paper once on how the reliance on e-mail communication for a decision-making process could sabotage even good communicators' best efforts. People just aren't responding spontaneously to one another in an authentic two-way encounter when they use e-mail. In fact, I'd argue that e-mail is often the tool of choice precisely in those situations where you really just want people to hear and respond to your message at a later point.

But when it comes to potential or actual sensitive issues, it was easy to misunderstand each other's intentions in a group e-mail exchange. It was then that we'd resort to spending the money on long-distance calls.

Communication is threaded through so many of our experiences - and clearly, by having this blog, I spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Agape in wonder at the most primitive of code systems
This weekend, with the Toronto-area weather even more humid by this time than normal (and with the irony not escaping us), my husband and I watched Live Earth. As cynical politically as I might be about this event - this ain't the forum for it, I don't think - I was still in childlike awe of all the communication vehicles that had to converge on this event before it happened, and all those that were being used to deliver it to us.

I am old enough to clearly remember watching Live Aid some 20 years ago. But then, we didn't also have the option to watch it on computers (what, those things in Star Trek?), telephones and portable screens of all sizes; or have special content transmitted to us through the data lines across the world via the Internet.

But more striking still to me was the little theme that bookended the broadcasts before and after commercials -- no, not the Madonna song (not nearly one of her most clever, IMHO) -- it was the use of the SOS and Morse Code.

Imagine, before all of the stuff we use now: a simple . . . - - - . . . (dot-dot-dot-dash-dash-dash-dot-dot-dot) conveyed a piercing urgency to those alert to the those needing saving via the most elementary of early airwaves. Again without getting too political, I have less use for many other legacies the military has left us than I have for such a brilliant, pure way of transmitting only the most needed information. I wish I could write as well as Morse spoke code.

The first few times, it sounded like a song. But then I saw the displayed text as above. Wow! Am I the only one who still finds this communication system just stunning?!

OK, so onto the title topic...


So I'm feeling guilty for missing a week with my blog. And, for being lazy in the last post and not adding a photo.

Hang in there with me, all 2.67 of you. I plan to give CTEM (like my nifty acronym?) a facelift soon. Be well until then, and come back again.

Once the label's off it's all dog's breakfast

As with many couples, my husband and I each have a few habits that drive the other nuts. We've been a couple for almost 20 years, and fortunately, we've retained our ability to tolerate being annoyed by one another for the sake of the positive parts of our relationship.

One of those things that makes me crazy is that, once food has been put into refrigerator containers (notice I avoided using the popular brand name!), food in our fridge becomes persona non grata to him.

Being overly practical, as I noted in my last post, I don't like to waste things. And it's hard to buy food in the exact quantities you need. Plus, I don't like eating out too often - both packaging and an empty wallet irk me.

So if there's leftover food in the fridge, I try to bring it for lunch or eat it again for a day or two. For my husband, the same food ends up as a biology project.

Yesterday, we figured it out. He forgets about food in the fridge unless it's been bought recently...and STILL HAS ITS LABEL (all caps intended - it freaked me out that much).

He's often thought we had "no food!", when I could see lots of possibilities in the fridge and cupboards. It turns out that, besides not loving the idea of leftovers, he's got the mental model that food is not as appetizing when it is not packaged.

Thank g*d he doesn't feel that way about women =:->

Turning labelling on its environmental ear



Along with thinking waaahhhyyyy too much about what everything around me means, I spend lots of energy on finding ways to re-use common products.

My motivation is not all planet-motivated, though that's a much more trendy way to position it these days. I have been an ardent re-purposer of things since far before it became trendy.

I don't aim to brag, as this quirk is partly also motivated by my overly practical - some have said neurotic - need to put everything to good use.

Finally, it's been more motivated of late by my commitment to simplifying my life; my system involves not bringing any more stuff into our home. This year I proclaimed "Make the most of what you already have" to be my mission statement for '07. It's a spiritual mantra, but I also mean it literally.

Prodded on by debt and lack of free time (I have a 3-year-old - nuff said?), I need to cut down on the cash I spend on stuff it turns out I usually don't need - hence the word "already".

That toddler I mentioned brings with her the need to manage a whole other whack of stuff besides my own. So, I am simplifying and - with an attitude of gratitude - making the most of what is already here.

And so to the point...
In a roundabout way, this brings me back to the title and its photo.

One of the ways I re-use or re-purpose things is by finding creative ways to re-use product packaging.

Since so many more types of product now enter my home - the kid again! - I have more colourful options from which to choose. So I'm finding new re-uses, too.

The Hello Kitty bookmark above is but one example. It's torn from the insert on her Size 3 underwear (of which she currently goes through scores per week). I also use the rigid cardboard box illustrations as "buddies" for my daughter; we laminate or stand them up for her to act out little plays with. Or, we give them to her to draw, colour or put stickers onto.

Thumbing the nose at - or propagating - the Brandish Invasion?

I once saw a 60-minutes about a guy in the U.S. who had written to every marketing company he could, in order to begin receiving sacks of junk post. The segment took you through the time he spent writing to these firms, and walked you through his shed, where he kept most of his "winnings." Only at the very end did we find out that by guaranteeing this mail he had secured all his home heating material for that winter - and then we pan to him feeding flyers into his woodstove (you almost can hear the maniacal laughter in the background).

So my little revolt is not quite at that level. And indeed, I might feel rather smug at having thumbed my nose at the product's original makers by ripping its package into fragments of its former likeness.

But then, you could also argue that I am only working to further propagate the company's brand - and even placing the product in unexpected, and therefore, effective, places.

But either way, I still think it's better than sticking it in the recycling bin.

Breaking it down - and knocking it out


At the end of day one of a major contract, I'm numb from absorbing billions of pixels of formal communications. I spent the day learning about the company for whom I'll now be writing and developing information over the next few months.

So I'm going to write something more off-the-cuff. As that poor guy in Mr. Osborne's class said in a posting a few months back: "My brain is full."

I find that so much of my idea generation has to do with finding commonalities between things, or aspects that link them together. If I am going to write anything down - especially here - I will also hope that the product of bringing disparate things together might be something unique, and if not that, at least something worth sharing. After all, there are no unique ideas, only unique iterations, right?

I've been accused by many of being someone who "thinks too much." Since starting to commit my ideas here, I'm now more on the lookout than ever for the deeper meaning of signals everything around me can offer.

Take my last workout with the heavybag in my garage. A former karate student, I still like to mix it up with the bag; I never stopped loving to kick and hit things. (Ah...now one gets why the cheesy choice of photo this week - and no, it ain't me.)

So last time I'm there wailing away on it - it's one of those water-filled base kinds that sit on the floor - and it starts spinning in a predictable pattern, so that it bounces back rythmically toward me with each punch. Each time, I go back in with the right hook in response. It becomes a dance of sorts, as the bag does its wobbly spinning thing each time I club it: bam-wobble-bop-bop-wobble-bam.

And it's this dance that boxers and sparrers of all disciplines rely on in predicting the next best place to go in and punish one's opponent. We also look for signals in the way other body parts might "telegraph" the fighter's intentions, like the eyes getting really wide when someone's about to strike. Dancers act on and often mirror the signals of their partners in a similar fashion.

And isn't it therefore a kind of communication that one has with one's training bag/sparring partner/opponent? See? It's all communication.

Or DO I just think too much? D'you think so? Lemmeknow by posting your comment...

And remember, you can still win this month by posting your comment! [see sidebar top left]

Toronto newsies enjoy clearer, more readable media


I haven't talked much about the mainstream media, and indeed my blog aims to examine what goes on mostly outsideof it. But as a clear language and literacy advocate, I'm sort of excited about what's been going on there lately.

In the last six months, both CanWest Global's TV news and the Toronto Star have launched ad campaigns focusing on how they're making the complex more simple for us.

The Global TV News has been tagging "News. Understood." to its commercials for months, complete with the earnest faces of its anchors as proof. This didn't surprise me, as they've always used a very direct - almost in your face - reporting style.*See Endnote 1*

I was more struck though when I saw that the Toronto Star is now making much on radio ads of its new, more readable, visual layout. It kind of takes me back, as when I have done readability assessments of clients' materials in past, I've often quoted the Star's reading level as an example of what Grade 8 looked like.

Back then, the Star used the more traditional, serif body and heading fonts. Now, as you can read for yourself, Your new Star's redesign improves readability," and "adds new features."

And they've done a very good job of practising what they preach, IMHO. The nice sans-serif blue typeface, the ample whitespace surrounding smiling photographic images...all good stuff for reading ease and consumer appeal.

This medium lends itself naturally to these features: many Web sites follow a "newspaper style" layout, to separate columns of info and images. Witness CNN's site, which has remained a terrific example. **See Endnote 2

The problem is, many sites try to cram too many columns in there, so things like logos and thumbnails end up looking like wads of crushed insects. CNN still only uses three columns, while some sites are up to five or six! Not surprisingly, Global's News site for Ontarians is similar: three main columns.

Interested in clear design? Have some favourite sites of your own? Lemmeknow...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Endnote 1
(I admit that I find their reporting tactics to be on the American-style fearmongering side. Personally, I get tired of being asked so often, so urgently "Is this the kind of school you want your child in?". Leslie Roberts' radio show on CFRB, however, is brilliantly sensitive and candid - second only to the also brilliant John Moore.)

**Endnote 2
I could have done without the double-wide, animated, hot-pink Victoria's Secret ad in the extreme right column.

Quickie divorce and remarriage via Facebook


The other week I finally got onto Facebook, the online social networking tool that's been reported on frequently of late as a forum for misguided teenage bullying and careless regard for personal boundaries.

I would not likely have signed up, but when I saw how many of my over-30 friends actually had a profile, I couldn't resist. I just LOVE finding out what makes people tick, and it turned out I was able to locate a whole whack of former colleagues with whom I'd lost touch. Above is the Face that greets my friends on my page(the only ones I've set up to see my profile info).

This week, I found a snag in Facebook's generally intuitive and bullet-proof navigation and user settings.

Since I'm just getting used to how my info displays, I've been adding and removing things from my profile. Take my birth year: I don't mind people knowing when my birthday is, but don't necessarily want all my Facebook friends - or those who want to be my friend - to know I'm pushing 40 (they might kick me out of the club!).

It's common to see where your Facebook friends have altered their profiles, too, as you will get a news feed about the change each time one of them makes it.

So, this week while fiddling, I removed not only my birth year but also my marital status. I'm figuring it's not relevant for these purposes - everyone on my Friends list knows I'm happily partnered, as evidenced by the pix of my daughter and husband available to Facebook friends.

But, when I changed my selection in the drop-down menu from "married" to blank, the newsfeed to my friends said I had changed my status from married - and next to the note was a broken-heart icon!!! So, even though I'd simply wanted the entire category to disappear, the system read and reported my change as though I had become un-married.

When I corrected the error a day later, a couple people jokingly wrote that I sure did work fast: divorced-then-remarried within a day!

Of course, it was the system's fault. It did not allow me to simply remove the mention of marital status and have that change recorded as such. Just goes to show how systems that automatically draw conclusions based on the information that's inputted are only as reliable as those who set them up; this one did not allow for the subtleties of how one might handle that particular chunk of her personal info.

It scares me to think of what happens to people who don't pay as much attention as I do (and I'm not nearly the savviest tech user around), when they choose what information they share, and with whom...

Kindred feeling with local TV stars - the Canadian Experience?

Last week I was at a local community pool with my daughter, and saw someone there who looked familiar - but I didn't know from where. Riffling through the inventory of places I've frequented, I couldn't place her in any of them. Grad school? No. A fellow mommy from K's daycare? No.

Then it hit me: she had been on two different CBC shows I'd watched - and very much liked - over the past couple years. Since they're Canadian shows, the people in them tend to reappear in other Canadian shows - a different orbit than the Hollywood types.

Is that why she felt so familiar? It was as though I'd reconnected with an old friend when I figured out from where I knew her. Her name is Paula Boudreau, and she starred in the fun hockey pseudo-reality show The Tournament, and also guested on the excellent This is Wonderland (both shows cancelled, two other brilliant moves by the CBC that seemed to fly in the face of the reception both shows got from viewers).

It was great to chat briefly with Paula and her lovely son; she was very helpful and kind to my daughter, too. And it was intriguing to feel such a sense of familiarity with someone I've never met. When I told a good friend about this, she said it was the quintessential Canadian experience.

Indeed, was it because I already felt familiar with the characters she'd played, so authentic in their Canadian-ness that they felt kindred? Do such characters mirror us as Canadians back to ourselves? (I try not to think this is possible with the Trailer Park Boys, however, despite that the director of the show is actually part of my extended family by marriage...LOL).

Or, is it the Canadian experience to have a relatively smaller pool of known talent, and therefore to feel that sense of familiarity with the faces that appear so often in our homegrown shows? Think Rebecca Jenkins, Sheila McCarthy, Maury Chaykin, Cara Pifko, Kate Trotter, Elias Koteas, Sonja Smits...they're the Al Waxman and Bruno Gerussi of my generation.

And now I can add Paula Boudreau to this list of "kin". I hope we meet up again sometime!

Branded feet


Okay, all you academics and overthinkers out there (and we know who we are)...this post contains endnotes for all of us who need to get our overanalytical ya yas out. =;->

You'll see them *surrounded by asterisks*

The Brandish Invasion, via bas-relief sock traction



I've just completed a week of holiday, spent with my 3-year-old. So naturally, my thoughts (i.e., rants) turn once more to the Brandish Invasion as it relates to kids' supplies.*See endnote 1*

Does anyone who has kids get annoyed, as I clearly do, about the way it's almost impossible to avoid having your children "branded" by their clothing? I've lately come to see that I unwittingly advertise for the companies - to whom I already give my money - that make the garments my child wears.

Take her socks. We have slippery floors where our daughter hangs out most often. So even though she's three, we still have her in those socks that come with rubberized slip guards. Designed to get the kid some traction, they slow down the more contortionistic positions your child might otherwise end up in, should she slip while running.

The slip guards are often shaped like cute shapes, such as stars, pawprints or butterflies. However, I've found very few pairs that had only these shapes; the rest also, or only, displayed the name of the socks' sellers as well. *Endnote 2*

The Brandish Bas-Relief of the subtitle, those brand names are almost reverse brands. The one we most readily think of is that which a cow would receive. That is burned into the animal's skin. But with K's socks, the name sticks out rather than being burned in.

Let's just say I'm looking forward to not needing the embossed socks anymore. And I won't even start on the Disney/Pixar/Nick Jr. monopoly on the design of my favourite brand of diapers. I've got her wearing the blue, boy's cut ones at present, because she likes the cars, and I detest the princesses on the pink ones. I'm starting to think switching to generic is not such a bad idea, cardboardy texture and all...*Endnote 3*

But once again, thankfully, K will outgrow those soon, too.

Will blog more soon - pooped from keeping up with that li'l fireball all week! (Best job in the world, tho')Thanks for checking in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now for those *Annoying Endnotes*...

*Endnote 1*
I'd started to write "kids' gear", but changed to the more generic "kids' supplies" when I thought of how pretentious that other word sounded. Funny how even what we call something has its own connotations, containing judgments about the speaker behind the word.

*Endnote 2*
Again on word choice, I'd started to write "the socks' makers", but then remembered that The Gap is not likely the name of the company that actually made my daughter's socks.

*Endnote 3*
I have tried the generics, but have just found the known brands to be better and more comfy for K. I'm just so pleased we can now recycle diapers in Richmond Hill now!

Out in the soil, but still feeling invaded



I’m back in the garden this week, getting the last of my seeds in and continuing to marvel at nature’s powerful language.

It makes sense that another post would come from our backyard, since I use this space to yammer about messages from around me. I’d like this to extend more concretely to ‘us’ someday, but for now we’re pretty much in Michelle’s World at present (until I see some more comments – yes this means you!).

At this time of year, I often benefit from being a home-based worker by spending the first half hour of the morning out among the fronds. It’s the best time to poke around the plants, see what new colour has appeared, and give some help to the droopers (Contrasted with those joyous flowers of last post, droopy ones communicate their own form of pathos with the downward curve and nondescript paleness, as if their petals had been sheathed under transparent tissue paper, then had the texture blown out of them).

Today I heard Bill Carroll on CFRB 1010 AM talking about his Rule of the Backyard. It goes that when you and your neighbour are both in the backyard, you should each do your best to act as though the other was not there. His logic is that in one’s backyard, one often is seeking solitude and privacy. So, even if the fence between you yields a peek or more, you should act as though there’s an invisible shield that keeps you from seeing one another. At the front of the house, on the other hand, it’s okay to approach your neighbour and chat.


An old proverb that still holds true

It’s true that good fences – imaginary or otherwise – make for good neighbours. I had heard a few years back that it’s an expression that translates into more different languages than most. And on further research I found a short piece on this very subject, called "Good fences make good neighbours": history and significance of an ambiguous proverb online – which spoke to the dark side of this saying. I also learned that the expression had been used ironically by Robert Frost in his storied poem, Mending Wall. (Check out the brief entry in Wikipedia about Mending Wall)

I often wish my fences were about two feet higher all around, so that so much cellophane and plastic packaging wouldn’t blow into my garden from others’ waste bins and the schoolyard behind us. My rule in the garden is, “If it’s not natural, it cannot be in my soil.” So I’m seen daily extricating cigarette butts, pieces of newspaper, receipts, shopping bags – you name it – from their former wedged position.

The Brandish Invasion revisited, via the composter

I guess that by removing packaging from the garden, I’m also eliminating brand presence. If you read my series on the Dora phenomenon, you know how I try to keep boundaries between brands and my private space. And I, too, consider the backyard as sacred.

So imagine my annoyance when I emptied my composter last week, and had to spend about ½ hour picking all those little produce stickers out of my fresh yield (“Ah,” says reader, “now I get the choice of photo”), along with doing a second sweep through the garden after dumping compost to ensure I hadn’t missed any. It’d likely be okay if they were pure paper, but many are plasticized in some way, I guess to keep them flexible to stick on uneven and rounded surfaces (think avocado).

I guess it’s better than starting to put all fruit and vegetables into packages in order to identify their source. But what a pain in the a**. Certainly, food more than anything else needs its source properly identified, if for no other reason than to know who to go after if you get sick after eating it. But imagine all the labels that got missed by other faithful composters. And imagine how many hours are spent at municipal waste management centres, peeling those little stickers off the contents of our green bins so that they can be properly fed back into the earth.

I went to an outdoor education camp as a teenager, and at the time I also smoked. I remember we went on a nighthike, and the leader telling us that if we absolutely had to smoke, we should pocket our butts afterwards. Evidently, it takes decades for the artificial material in the filters to even begin to biodegrade.

I wonder how long those stickers take to start decomposing. Maybe the next person to own our house will get turned onto Turbana bananas, too, while digging up our garden.

The lesson? Peel those puppies off as soon as you take the produce out to eat, and put them in the trash where they belong. The critical view? Labels find their way everywhere, even where you don’t expect them to.

Floral expression


If you've been here, you've seen me zip in a few directions lately, as I notice the way different things around us communicate.

Today, I will leave the roadway and explore the natural world - again reflecting where I've spent time lately - to look at what the garden says to us.

If you have one, or enjoy foliage in others' yards, you're seeing lots of action if you live above the Equator. Areas where only a week ago hopeful tufts of green poked out are now replaced by countless shades of green, often dotted with the brilliant blasts of colour from bulb flowers and early-blooming perennials.

I can never look at flowers without ascribing personalities and 'souls' to them, so I'm almost anthropomorphic in describing them. Bear with me - I have a point related to communication, however tenuous you might find it.

Consider the tulips in the photo here. Don't they seem to say "Here we are! Hello, world! How can you not love us!?" And doesn't this evoke the same feelings of hope and renewal in many of us when we see them? Along with the simple joy the colours transmit, bulbs and perennials always inspire me to cope better with whatever's going on in my head. Because, after all, if these li'l plants can come back each year, seemingly out of nowhere, then I can 'come back' from whatever's dogging me.

Garden supply catalogue writers would probably be lost without descriptors like 'cheery', 'shy' or even 'flirty.' Maybe they're referring to the way those species make us feel when we look at them. But I think they, too, look at flowers as having personalities.

Think of the tiny Johnny Jump-up, as it pokes through the even tinier crack between two patio stones to put its delicate, fragile 'face' out to the world; or the Forget-me-not blooms that seem to find their way metres away from where their first seeds were planted - and can set root into places flowers don't seem to belong. In later summer, we are greeted by those Sunflower faces that peer down at us from 9-foot-tall stalks, and purple coneflowers, their petals thrust back from their centres like hair blown back by the wind.

I have a huge, climbing Golden Clematis plant that, when it goes to seed, looks like a bunch of fuzzy-haired Dr. Suess characters. I've always called these "the Whos from Whoville" in homage to those optimistic Grinch story villagers. A teacher friend who's also passionate about gardening made the very same comparison one day, when she visited my garden.

Then, by extension, we see the out-and-out glee among the bees and other bugs who pile on as soon as those blooms appear. You only need to see a honeybee with its legs and stomach covered in bright yellow dust, its flight slowed and uneven as it tries to fly weighted down by all that pollen, to see what I mean. Even so weighed down, the bee seems thrilled. And then again, the trilling of birdsong in the background doesn't hurt the joyful, lovefesty mood.

Either I'm onto something in articulating how flowers communicate - or I should get out of my garden and back into the 'real world' of technology distractions and cellphone jockeys on the road...

If you're out there, use the Submit a Comment link to have your say.

Vehicular communication and more intellectual overload

Digression into intellectual property - and kiddieland yet again!
In my last post, I said we'd left kiddieland. But I couldn't help but first think of the Disney/Pixar movie, Cars, as I wrote the above title.

But of course if you've been reading, you know by now I'm not likely to post a photo of any of the movie's characters - that would infringe upon copyright. But, if I took a photo of a line drawing that my daughter had coloured in, which was from a book bearing said copyrighted photos on the front, would that infringe on copyright?

What do you think? Remember, there's possibly $50 worth of book shopping in it for you if you post a comment this month...

OK, now here's the topic already - messages drivers send each other
Once while on a Girls' Roadtrip, one of my travelling companions said, "You know, I find it amazing how all the cars just blink their lights, and we respond by moving over. It's such a neat way that we communicate!"

I want to write today about how vehicles - and of course, the people controlling them - communicate while on the road. But I'm referring to the other things we do with our vehicles outside of conventional signals that communicate things about us (especially since so many people don't bother to signal anyway - grrrr).

I was thinking about this on the way to drop my daughter at daycare this morning. It's only about a km from our house, and I usually take her there along the residential sidestreets.

On one of the streets along our route, there are a couple of enormous houses being built. In fact, they've been being built for more than a year now. And now that it's spring, the projects have picked up steam again. That means lots of cars and trucks on either side of the street in front of the two houses.

So now, traffic is limited to about 1.3 lanes, on a street built to comfortably hold one lane each way, with maybe one lane to squeeze onstreet parking. That was before one knew what SUV stood for (though our suburb probably saw its share of farm and dirt trucks when the road was built).

This narrowing has resulted in an ongoing game of "chicken" between drivers approaching from either direction - a game in which I admit to participating myself. It goes like this: I see an approaching vehicle; I assume that driver sees me. I then size up the vehicle. Is it a Honda or a Hummer? Is the driver slowing down? How far over are they moving?

I'm usually driving either our li'l 2002 Jetta, or a slightly larger Passat. So my question is always the same: "Should I speed up and zip through the space before they do, and will they wait for me to? And would we both fit if we went through together?" Essentially, if possible, I want to get where I'm going without stopping too often (yah, I'm a bit of a Type-A driver). And I assume most others feel that way, too.

Already, I'm looking for a bunch of different signals about what the other person plans to do. And, you could say that in this jockeying for position, I'm revealing some things about my personality as well. I'm also looking for messages about other people's personalities based on whether they speed up or slow down.

And, I'm making judgments about what they'll do based on the vehicle they have: not only whether our cars would physically fit through the gap together, but also about that person's level of aggression and sense of entitlement based on their choice of vehicle. The Honda driver would likely seem to me less likely to charge (unless outfitted with a 4-inch-wide dual-pipe exhaust) than would the one with the Hummer.

Another message drivers send - at least in my book - is through their choice to talk on the phone, put on makeup, listen to their iPods or read the paper while driving. To me, they all communicate the same thing: "I am very busy and must do this other thing now, even though it might compromise my driving. Therefore, my time is more important than my or someone else's safety."

Do I come off as just ranting and being judgmental about other drivers? Perhaps. And I'm certain other drivers have not liked being behind me, either. But I've formed those opinions based on the messages I've received from others while sharing the road with them.

Overload on the road
More research results are starting to support my opinion about what happens to people's attention span when they're driving and doing something else at the same time.

That "something else" has been the subject of many a chortling highway cop's news appearance on the Monday news; anyone who's grown up in Ontario has seen them - those segments on the completely whacked out things people have been caught doing while on the way home from the cottage: eating a super-mega plate of nachos, rolling a cigarette, balancing a beer on one's head while driving with his knees...the stories are legion!

But, seriously, this is another example of how we are cognitively impaired when we try to do too many tasks at the same time. Our brains only have so much RAM to go on (and you probably all know someone who you think functions on much less capacity than most!)

And, you probably have all experienced being behind a driver who is obviously having a brain lapse, as they drive 20km/hour in a 60 zone, and the silhouette of their head looks like it has a hand and a phone attached.

I'm not usually one to get behind a "corporate" cause, but if you're interested in what's been found on the subject in Canada, check out the cellphone study posted on the Insurance Bureau of Canada's Click On This site. Or, Google "distracted driving" to see what else has been learned on the subject. I know it makes me stop and think before taking that call while commuting home.

IP, "Tools" and Intellectual Overload


A boy puts up his hand in class and asks,

"Mr. Osborne. May I be excused? My brain is full."
(Gary Larson, from
The Far Side 2007 Page-a-day Calendar)
______________________________________________________________

Intellectual overload

I wish this header meant we'd talk about what it's like to be too smart. That honour I shall reserve for someone who could lead that discussion from experience ~;->

I mean somewhat the opposite: the way our brains become less efficient at processing information when they're receiving too many messages at once.

Look at the photo here. It's my dining room table a few weeks back, around 2:30 in the afternoon.

Now, what's the first thing you feel when you see it? Does the techno-salad make you energetic? Anxious? Indifferent? And, what about the papers lining the frame? You might be wondering why one would need so many different media at once.

Looking at the photo, and writing about it, I admit to feeling a bit anxious. And it's my office. Being a consultant gives me greater ability to control my space. But I'm still a creature of the culture within which I work. So here are all the "tools" that I refer to daily - for most, hourly - to conduct my business.

Here's an example. On a typical day, I'll go to my daytimer (bottom-left corner) to mark a date, after reading an e-mail in the laptop (opposite corner)where someone had asked whether I could send a document in .PDF format (using same laptop) on the day I'm now marking down. Underneath the deadline note, I'm adding a reminder to install the new PDF conversion software beforehand. That is how I will meet my client's expectations.

In this action alone, I've had to use two separate media from the spread in the photo, and think about three (including the software decision and follow-up plan). And this kind of processing happens repeatedly, as I navigate how I'm going to use time to please my customers and keep making money.

If you're reading this, you too are likely part of a culture one where we need to be reachable frome several places simultaneously. And, it's expected that we will process information in several formats quickly.

And - if you're in many businesses, including mine - many clients will expect you to deliver high-quality information, quickly.

And then there are all those less-sexy thoughts that enter our minds while we're using all the tools to work in warp speed.

Like the meeting with your son's teacher and why he's been coming home so tired the past few days; or the pile of cat vomit next to the litterbox, both of which need to be cleaned; or whether you remembered to pay your VISA bill - and did you pay the "after due date" amount when you didn't need to?!

I've left kiddieland, dear reader. This is a new discussion I'm excited about, because I find it compelling. And, I suspect that if you're still here, then you do, too.

But, it is Monday, so let's not barrage ourselves with too much more on this...Post a comment, or come back soon to hear more about this topic that's burning my (info-addled) brain.

Let's also continue the discussion about Intellectual Property (IP). And you can win something!

Question of the week: strictly speaking, was it stealing to publish that photo of the Dora chocolate last week? Lemmeknow what you think by posting your comment below through the Comments link. I'll be collecting comments and drawing a commenter's name at the end of May - the winner will receive a Best Buy gift certificate worth $25.

More 'o' Dora...and discussion of intellectual property


Ok, I'll try to make this my last one on this topic, despite how easy quarry poor Dora and her ilk are!

Last week I took my own picture of a Dora chocolate. Since then, I've been wondering if my post violates their trademark. I DID take it myself, and could say that someone took it not knowing about the trademark notice engraved into her back (after all, my hub did eat that part before I took the photo). BUT, I did then go on to make much of that engraving in my post. Hmmm...

On one hand, people post photos of the Dora character in the thousands; eBay alone likely has about 100 different photos people have taken of the huge range of no-longer-loved (or never-opened) Dora toys available. Are they violating copyright or trademark? Strictly speaking, probably, because they're reproducing the image for their own gain.

When I wrote my first missive on what has become the "Dora series," I Googled for Dora images, thinking I'd use one to liven things up. But then, I thought I'd be violating trademark / copyright law, and as a professional communicator that's against my ethics. But, am I any less guilty if I take my own photo? Where does trademark protection end?

For example, I used to work with someone who followed a strict sense of ethics in preserving the brand of the company we worked for, but would still copy images of other companies' logos from their Web sites for posting on our intranet. He didn't think this was an issue, likely since it boosted that other company's brand recognition. But he better than anyone knew that in many cases any alteration of the image's size or dimensions could water down or otherwise negatively represent their brand.

I've also been thinking of copyright for info that appears here in this blog. Does anyone out there know whether any blog posting can appear in future as an article in another medium? I'm assuming that, since this was clearly traceable back to me, the ideas belong to me.

But now that it's "out there," I know no-one can represent it as their own (yeah, like that's gonna happen anyway), do I have permission to do anything else with it? Say I wanted to develop a blog entry into a longer article, for instance.

If you're one of my two-point-five readers, and can shed any light on this, I'd like to hear about it. (And TIA!)

Branded holidays: chocolate Dora



I keep trying to get off this subject, but keep being given more fodder for my battle against the Brandish Invasion.

Th Easter holiday just came through our home, via chocolate confection and new spring clothes for our daughter, K. We observe Passover, too, and both holidays came during the same week this year.

The pictured chocolate Dora arrived via K's grandmother, my mom. You see it in it's partially-eaten form.

Everyone knows we can choose from many shapes molded from chocolate each year. Even when I was a kid, there were chocolate Bugs Bunnies, aside the more traditional, "generic" ones. Now, there's likely more selection between characters. I like to think there are still just as many kids who are just happy to have a huge piece of chocolate to devour, and therefore don't care that they don't recognize the bunny or chicken (not that it matters, since within seconds it will likely be missing an ear).

In explaining my current brand bugaboo, the photo doesn't do the job I'd hoped it would do - my husband ate the part I really wanted to photograph. This part was the back side of the chocolate Dora. Engraved into the back - before David at it! - were the year and trademark information for the Dora character. My daughter's Easter treat had quite literally been branded.

The proverbial (cash) cow for the nice folks at Nick Jr., even this rendering of the beloved Dora had to remind us that someone had created her. If we as humans did this, I'd be walking around with my mom's name and the year I was born carved into my back.

I would have liked to ask K if she'd noticed the letters and numbers on Dora's back. But then, she wasn't all that concerned about biting off Dora's feet straight away. So I think (and hope) the branding would have escaped her, too.

p.s. Apologies if this photo ends up dwarfing my post - first time adding one!

It's another step in this blog's evolution...I welcome your comments to turn this blog into a conversation you'll want to keep being part of!

Expert communications tools help Gore to forward his environmental campaign (repost from February 26, 2007, 11:18 am)

(Forgive me for reposting this week. Have got a lot of catch-up to do on other fronts...I hope it's still relevant to readers.)

On the morning after the Oscars, it makes sense to talk about some impressions I had about An Inconvenient Truth, now a multiple Oscar winner, including for Best Documentary.

Mr. Gore himself attended, even though, as far as I know, he was not instrumental in creating the film apart from starring in it. But they dragged him up onstage when Truth won. He even presented an award with Leo DiCaprio, where they yet again good-humouredly put Gore out as the guy who just can’t catch a break: after a few minutes of set-up by Leo, Gore began to deliver an “important announcement”, at which time the orchestra music swelled up behind him, drowning him out.

The film itself had started that set-up of Gore as the guy who won-but-then-(unfairly)-lost the last presidency. The interweaving of his unfortunate presidential history worked brilliantly to inspire empathy and open the ears of us viewers, so we’d more openly absorb the environmental message.

But it’s also the delivery of the message that struck me – essentially, the presentation part of the film was one of the most well-done PowerPoint presentations I’ve seen.

If you’ve seen the movie, you’ll recall that Gore stood onstage, dwarfed by the huge presentation that filled the wall behind him. The only words on it were labels – headings, titles of the X and Y axes on graphs, top-of-screen titles – while the rest was a series of images.

The images were often charts and graphs, which moved to demonstrate rising earth core temperatures, for example. Colour was used powerfully, too, with those rising red temperature lines contrasting with the more benign, powder blue ones alongside that indicated the desirable cool temps.

At other points, those relatively more clinical diagrams would be replaced by mammoth photos of forests burning and glaciers melting, with the vivid reality of the photos shocking the audience to full effect.

Then, just when a viewer might start to feel her eyes glazing over, the film would cut to the more “biographical” elements about Gore’s political life leading to the point in time of the film’s making. You see, and start to feel, the frustration of Gore and his supporters as they year after year tried to put the environment on the American political agenda. By the time we’re back to the presentation part, it’s hard not to completely turn yourself over to accepting Gore’s arguments.

Indeed, if the rock star treatment the media gave Gore during last week’s Toronto visit and during last night’s Oscars are any indication, this down-and-out crusader for the underdog – he campaigned for literacy during the Clinton presidency, too – has reinvented himself into a powerhouse of influence.

Regardless of which side of the environmental argument you find yourself on, you have to admit that Gore clearly knows how to use the communications vehicles available to him to his full advantage.

The Brandish Invasion - the saga continues

This past Saturday was my daughter's third birthday. Her grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins were all here. By the time they'd left, more than ten items bearing the image of Dora the Explorer had entered the building, along with a few of cohorts Winnie the Pooh (Disney version, natch), Pixar's Nemo and Thomas the Tank Engine.

I cannot write a long blog this week - too busy figuring out where all this stuff is going to go. Also, at the risk of sounding ungrateful, from here on in we'll be strategizing about how to influence the buying tendencies of our family so that our household is not so overwhelmed by the invasion of marketing in future.

(And for the environmental and anti-consumer movements - group I am beginning to identify with - this move will help cut down on the amount of new plastic and packaging that are created while these items are produced.) Garage sales and barter exchanges, here we come!

Anything to reduce the amount of physical and spiritual junk we end up having to manage, including the impact on our daughter. We want her to understand that life is about much more than recognizing your favourite cartoon characters on everything you own.

Dora and The Brandish Invasion

As I finally come down from a day that included the din of weekend mall buzz, it seems a suitable time to put down some thoughts on the current state of the brand. And since I spent that mall time with a three-year-old, I am viewing it mostly through the lens of the parent.

My daughter’s is certainly not the first generation to experience what I now call The Brandish Invasion. It's been thus to varying degrees, oh, since during my parents' childhoods, from the moment the ray of the first television broadcast sliced through the dullness of their winter living rooms.

But in this time, where you can receive the same "experience" transmitted through multiple media, it's escalated to ridiculous proportions. I’ll focus the discussion by looking at the ways a single, well-drawn kids' television character has grown into the merchandising monster that ate Manhattan: I give you Dora the Explorer.

Basic definitions

Obviously the title of this blog entry is a play on the expression British Invasion. When I added the suffix “ish” to “brand”, it occurred to me that it could be confusing, since “brandish” is an entirely separate word. But as it turns out, it fits: when I look up the word "brandish," on dictionary.com, the first definition that appears says it means 1. to shake or wave, as a weapon; and 2. a flourish or waving, as of a weapon.

I have no problem equating the Dora empire with a formidable weapon. And, by extension, I cannot sometimes help feeling like brands continue to invade my personal space, and jab away at my efforts to keep my daughter from feeling the urgent pull of product at an inappropriately young age. Like that brandished weapon, Dora’s creators have done all they can to thrust and wave her in our faces.

After all, it's now possible to meet Dora in our travels through the media of VHS, DVD (both movies and games), CD, TV, and Web - I'm sure I've missed some more edgy examples, having never set thumb on a game controller. When I'm shopping with my daughter for her everyday needs - like food, art supplies, and almost anything in the paper products category – within minutes I’ll be stared down by Dora’s permanently widened, Anime-reminiscent eyes. Or, more often, Kyra does, since all placement of Dora products usually happens at her eye level.

Dora’s ever-expansive buddha-like mug can sneak up on us anywhere: on fruit snack boxes, cereal, most kids' clothing items and accessories, diapers, bubble bath, sheets, headboards, cereal, books, kids' drink containers, toboggans, cutlery, lollipops, cheesy tabletop clocks...and sadly, I admit that my daughter owns many of these; others she fought admirably to get, too, but my will was stronger on those days.

Even outside the kids’ product aisles, I have to stay ever-vigilant for cross-promotion efforts (Dora drain opener, anyone?). And now they’ve spun off the character of her cousin, Diego, securing the other half of the kid population with a male character little boys will presumably want to emulate.

Originally, we'd embraced Dora – along with Sesame Street – thinking it's good for her to experience media at reasonable doses, provided she’ll actually gain some valuable learning from it. If you strip away all the “stuff” attached to her, Dora and her friends teach some pretty cool lessons about teamwork, solving problems and accepting other languages and cultures. Kyra has even learned some basic Spanish thanks to the show, which I now have picked up and run with, since I speak it, too.

Watching shows about her cousin, Diego, we’ve learned about unusual rainforest creatures and adopt an environmental mindset as we join animal rescuer Diego in his adventures. Of course, this narrative has its shadow side, too. For example, I wonder if child labour advocates have ever asked why neither Dora nor Diego is seen spending much time in school. But I digress…we’ll do Foucault on another day.

Avoiding commercials doesn't fully protect you

I should note that we don’t actually watch any of these kids’ stories on television proper, but rather on DVDs and VHS tapes. It’s our conscious decision that – eschewing the APA warnings about TV for kids – we’ll at least control exactly what she watches and designate TV viewing time as a specific chance to enjoy and learn together, rather than random or “background noise” phenomemon. And, we favour DVDs over, say Treehouse, in order to control the amount of needless information thrust in front of our child. But the marketers are one step ahead of us there, too.

Before you can view the menu on a DVD, you must be ready with your clicker to skip through between 2 and 8 promotional spots. Some are for other stories about the same character we’re watching, and others are for other well-known kids’ shows under the Nick Jr. banner. You cannot skip through these – at least, not with my player – without seeing at least the first couple seconds of each promo. Fortunately, my daughter has gotten used to this and sees this as “the way mommy or daddy starts the Dora movie.”

In almost all cases, the makers have added a feature that prevents viewers from skipping certain parts, such as the copyright warning. In others, it’s even more nefarious. Take Sesame Street, the long admired, seemingly untouchable paragon of educational virtue. Did you know that many of their DVDs contain an introductory vignette about all the good work they’re doing around the world? Fine. It makes sense for them to brag – they’ve earned it.

BUT, did you know that they DON’T LET YOU SKIP THROUGH their bragfest?!? To me, that’s just low: and the message I get is that methinks the producers doth protest too much about how wonderful they are, given their need to shove that message in our faces each time we want to enjoy counting with The Count.

As a communications consultant, I have been responsible professionally for promoting and supporting brands over the years. But I was never given such pause about the subject of brands – and their twin supporters, merchandising and marketing – until I attempted to prevent someone from encountering one, as I now do with my daughter. All I can do is limit her to only a few television characters, and hope that this will in turn limit the amount of useless and/or overpriced stuff that ends up in my house, on those days when I give up on arguing with a toddler. Unfortunately, I cannot control what the kids at school have on their T-shirts and lunchboxes. And on those rainy afternoons where they let the kids chill with a DVD, she’s learned to recognize many other kids’ characters we keep out of our home.

How I deal on my own time

As an adult, one assumes that I have more critical judgment about how marketing and branding affect my interests. And as such, I am alert to the invasion of advertising into my personal space. Each time a commercial comes on TV or radio, I immediately mute, fast-forward or change stations. Bottom line: I am tired of being yelled at in my own house – have you noticed how the ads are usually a couple volume levels higher than the show you’re watching?.

Car dealer and furniture stores are the worst for screaming through their copy – and then there are those monster truck rallies! – as though if you don’t get there right away to see that truck crush another, buy their particleboard table, or scoop that “midnight madness” bargain on a jeep, your life is as good as overwith.

With brands and products weaving their way through almost all encounters we have in a day, I no longer have the patience for it once within the cocoon of my home. And I will remain ever so when it comes to what is put in front of my child, especially within our own four walls. ‘Cause once we step outside them, we’re all much fairer game.

-end

The Blog - who would've thunk it in 1988?!

When I was fifteen, I was furiously dedicated to keeping my journal. My dad would get those industrial-sized daytimers – usually dated the previous year, but what did I care? – and I would scribble feverishly into them all year, redating as I went along.

Flash-forward almost 25 years later (argh, I’ve always hated people who wrote that in their articles, but will let it stand for the sake of the organic nature of the blog) - and we find ourselves in the age of the blog.

At the same time I write this, people all over the world – or at least, in the developing part of it – are writing in their electronic ‘journals’. Many of them may not even know, or care, that blog is short for Web log. Like "IM-ing", "e-mail" and Web before it, this word has slowly slid its way into the collective vocabulary.

Back in those first days in the mid-eighties - when I would battle with the typewriters, sewing and adding machines I was being taught to use in high school - I could not have imagined a world where we could write to people and have our messages go to them through the phone and cable lines.

The idea that people would also be typing and publishing their journals into a place everyone all over the world could potentially go to see them...no way, I would have said, mustering all the wisdom of my fifteen years on earth.

Heck, at that point in my life, and in technology's evolution, I could barely imagine the fact that one could type something and then erase it completely. And all before even printing anything, too.

Has anyone ever had their white-out got old but you'd try to use it anyway? I don't know about you, but I would end up leaving a gooey, rough-textured phantom that often still gave clues to the error underneath. The appearance of the full error would often happen over time, as each new slice of cracked Liquid Paper fell off.

I got a typewriter with a built-in correction tool in 1986. I was about 18, in my last grade of high school. I marvelled as I pressed the Erase button, and watched the automatic correction tape kick in under the clear plastic that protected the high-tech digital display - another new feature that perhaps foreshadowed the onscreen text format that would overtake it only months later.

That first computer would be the Vendex Head Start, the first computer I ever bought, purchased for 1,800 in 1988. It came with a black and white 14" monitor, and two, impressive-sounding 5 1/4 inch floppy drives. Its spokesperson was King Kong Bundy, the giant, coneheaded wrestler who in that time would still be highly recognizable.

My first impressions of that experience were that it intimidated the heck out of me. For example, I learned a couple years later that my first PC only had a 'virtual' hard drive. It really sucked when it came time to do my resume. And don't even get me started on the dot-matrix printer...

But I was also thrilled to discover that it was possible to Block and Move entire paragraphs of text. Wow - what a boon to improving the logical order of a paper! And I could look at the paper, once written, time and time again onscreen, print and edit the hard copy (did we even have that technical term back then, "hard copy"?), and then go back and edit onscreen again. It sure made second-guessing one's writing an entirely new enterprise.

But here we are now, writing our journal onscreen, and maybe editing it, too. Or, we might leave it looking like the old paper versions of the journal: a ragged, awkward series of observations on the most zen-like now.

Except these days, we're sharing our dear diary with anyone who'll bother to open it. We might even give people the key.