Skip to main content

Brand typecasting

I think I've discovered a new phenomenon about branding.

Typecasting!

For example, most females - and I'm not being sexist here, just quantitative through observance - driving a Mini or one of those ridiculous and unnecessary 4x4 juggernauts, tend to be blond. And always on their mobiles. In fact, I'm convinced the new Rage Rover Evqoues that have sprung up around our area are all being driven in turn by the same short, blond, telephone-obsessed woman.

Similarly, the young ladies with their jeans tucked into their genuine, or otherwise, Ugg boots, look like clones of each other, identical hair, far too much make-up, copy fashion bags hanging from their arms and interminable Blackberry clutched in their hands. (As an aside, I cannot understand why they have to nurse their phone, checking it every seven seconds - it is so simple to get it to make a sound when there's a message. I know back in the 70's/80's I never wandered around the house with the phone and handset glued to me 24/7!).

Then there's the great unwashed. Always in blue tracksuits (with perfunctory white stripes down the legs) and trainers, despite there being no intention on their part to take any form of exercise whatsoever, the exception being the lifting of chips out of their newspaper wrapping or a slow amble down to the pub to exchange their weekly shopping money for beer.

And then there are the 'cool dudes', with their cumbersome ape-like, swinging, bandy-legged walk, with a baseball cap either sideways or backwards on their head, a ridiculous cheap large, fake diamond ear-stud in each ear, and trouser crotch at, or below, their knees. Listening, and making us listen, because they are too ignorant to use earphones, to what sounds like building site noise backing someone shouting unintelligible vocalised garbage from their mobile phones.

And all of these people were the first to complain that they had to wear a school uniform, yet they look and act more identical than ever!

Then there's a hard core of men at an age when they seem to have forgotten they were teenagers over 50 years ago, but they insist on having ignorant football club tattoos and a, or several, gold curtain ring/s in one ear, appearing, to all intents and purposes, like complete numbskulls. Unless the earrings are to tether them to the kitchen sink for some washing up duties at home.

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that the chasm between fashion and style has widened to such an extent.

I saw a picture of the designer Karl Lagerfeld a short time back following his presentation of the Chanel collection. And what a mess he looked. Almost 70, ponytail, Harry Hill-style shirt with tie untidily and not fully done up, pair of jeans with cowboy boots and some sort of grey, tailed trench coat.

Even to those of us who are completely fashion unconscious, he looked a total mess. And the fact he's "Karl Lagerfeld" is no excuse.

Fashionable perhaps. Stylish, not even remotely.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The "Win a Million" free scratch card newspaper inserts

One of those three-panel "Win a Million" scratchcards fell out of my newspaper this morning. Not a major or in anyway newsworthy event in itself, but I must admit my surprise. I didn't think anyone bothered with them anymore, or, to be a little more technical, I didn't think anyone was taken in by them anymore. Firstly, it actually is printed on the bottom of each panel that "Every card has a set of 3 matching symbols, 2 matching symbols and no matching symbols". Right, so you are going to 'win', half-win and not win respectively. Then, while the prize list is somewhat impressive with 1x£1m, 1x£100k, 2x£20k, 3x£10k and other things like holidays, tablet PC's city breaks all the way down to 1000 "faux" fashion watches, 1000 salon  makeovers and 1000xVIP Thames cruises. Now should I be stupid enough to spend the £1.53 a minute for the 6 minute phone call to claim my prize (that's almost a tenner, for those of you without cal

Chancellor's letter of apology to Bob Diamond of Barclays

Thanks to my contacts at the new News International business "Phonetaps'R'Us", I was exclusively sent a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Executive of Barclays Bank, Bob Diamond, from the Chancellor yesterday. "Dear Bob Trusting you and yours are well. Listen mate. Sorry the F inancially S tupid A sses wrote to your bank yesterday to demand £290million as a fine. It's nothing personal, and just because your bank head office people are a bunch of dishonest, thieving bastards, I thought there was no reason to carry on that way and fine you. I made this clear to the FSA yesterday as soon as I heard the news. I told them that the taxpayer would have been more than happy to bail you out. And also. Look mate. Sorry you've had to give up your bonus this year. It must have come as quite a shock, and was a wonderful thing for you to volunteer to do. I only hope you've put something by from the £17million you received last year. No doubt the bank pay

"Q". My name is Bond. Oh. not THAT Q.

I was sent a story today by a friend who knows my feelings on the subject - that is, about one of the consummately greatest of all British activities, namely, queuing. It seems some Danish Professor or other has come up with the theory that those who queue the longest should actually be served the last. He claims it makes purchasing something altogether more efficient and smooth through the idea of 'contra-queuing' (whatever the devil that may mean). 'Serve the people at the back of the queue first', he says, with profound wisdom. Altogether very professorial, albeit demonstrating a somewhat keen lack of understanding of the purchasing psyche. The Nobel Prize-chasing Prof suggests that if, for example, a popular entertainment act was to announce a tour, with tickets going on sale at 11am one morning, using the theory of 'contra-queuing', no one will want to be first to buy said tickets. So no one will turn up 14 months in advance and venues will