[Closed] Clever logo... (well I thought so anyway)

TandemJeremy - Member
coke is a lower dose of caffine per unit volume and does not contain taurine

Hmmm, seem like someone has accidently swallowed a big gulp of branding if they think they need taurine, but then I'm sure they know better than the American Pharmacists Association 🙄

Journal of the American Pharmacists Association
Volume 48, Number 3 / May-June 2008 Pages: e55 - e67
Safety issues associated with commercially available energy drinks

Kevin A. Clauson A1, Kelly M. Shields A2, Cydney E. McQueen A3, Nikki Persad A1

A1 College Of Pharmacy-West Palm Beach, Nova Southeastern University, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.
A2 Rudolph H. Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, Ada.
A3 Natural Product Information, Drug Information Center, School of Pharmacy, University of Missouri-Kansas City

Objective: To describe benefits and adverse effects associated with the consumption of energy drinks.

Data sources: Searches were conducted using Medline, IPA (International Pharmaceutical Abstracts), EMBASE, and MANTIS; databases such as Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database, Natural Standard, ALTMEDEX, and AltHealthWatch; and Google (range 1980 to September 2007). Search terms included energy drink, Red Bull, caffeine, glucose, ginseng, guarana, taurine, and bitter orange.

Data synthesis: Most energy drinks contain natural products such as guarana, ginseng, and taurine. As much as 80 to 300 mg of caffeine and 35 grams of processed sugar per 8-ounce serving are commonly present in energy drinks such as Cocaine, Pimp Juice, Red Bull, and Spike Shooter. No reports were identified of negative effects associated with taurine, ginseng, and guarana used in the amounts found in most energy drinks. Commonly reported adverse effects seen with caffeine in the quantities present in most energy drinks are insomnia, nervousness, headache, and tachycardia. Four documented case reports of caffeine-associated deaths were found, as well as four separate cases of seizures associated with the consumption of energy drinks.

Conclusion: [b]The amounts of guarana, taurine, and ginseng found in popular energy drinks are far below the amounts expected to deliver either therapeutic benefits or adverse events[/b]. However, caffeine and sugar are present in amounts known to cause a variety of adverse health effects.

And I don't even know what an echidna is. That's how upset I am.

An Echidna is a monotreme, one of only two in the world, does that help?

[i]do you really believe that?[/i]

Well I'd have no idea what Red Bull did if they didn't make some effort to both brand the product and market it.

And if they didn't market it I suspect no-one would stock it so TJ would be denied his Caffeine/Taurine based beverage of choice.

This is the point of marketing/branding - it lets you make an informed decision on which drink to buy - it saves you time

gigerenzer would tend to agree

M6TTF - Member
This is the point of marketing/branding- it lets you make an informed decision on which drink to buy - it saves you time.

do you really believe that?

contrary to what YOU believe, it's not all smoke and mirrors...

it depends what you're trying to market - branding is not all about selling goods.

An Echidna is a monotreme, one of only two in the world, does that help?

Yes, i was thinking of buying one for my kids in their piano lessons

So are you just ignoring my scenario now TJ?

Please don't - I'm keen to learn how your Brand Immunity™ works in practise.

from purely a grpahic design point we were taught in uni this is a classic example of a perfect LOGO...

[img] [/img]

AWESOME!

I would be interested in TJ's CV if he doesn't buy into the marketing thing.

Getting back to the subject of the OP, I saw this yesterday, and thought it was very good.

[img] [/img]

I found it memorable because it's visually very simple, but also very clever. A very good bit of logo design, I thought.

Elfinsafety - Member

TJ; what in the name of the Sweet Little Baby Born In Bethlehem are you banging on about? Seriously?

I don't think I've ever seen anybody wronger than this on the forum.

You are so wrong, that in the Scale Of Wrongness, you are a Custard Yellow Fiat Multipla driven by a naked man with blue-painted testicles and an echidna up his bottom.

Please stop. Please.

ELF- you've taken on the equivalent role of those big bald blokes who take away the screaming teen from Simon Cowell's stage as she's going "BUT I CAN SING! I KNOW I CAN!"

hilldodger - Member

Conclusion: The amounts of guarana, taurine, and ginseng found in popular energy drinks are far below the amounts expected to deliver either therapeutic benefits or adverse events. However, caffeine and sugar are present in amounts known to cause a variety of adverse health effects.

I fully expect this signal to be lost in the chaotic noise that this thread has become. Let's hope TJ answers this bit.

I would be interested in TJ's CV if he doesn't buy into the marketing thing.

He won't have one, will he? It's a marketing tool for self promotion.

exactly

graham - I gave my answer. its a meaningless question.

[img] [/img]

Re the Shell logo - Raymond Loewy (who designed the modern incarnation in 1971) actually advised Shell not to put the branding on the backs of transporter lorries as, when staring at the logo when stuck in a traffic jam, you would develop negative emotions about the Shell brand as a whole.

And that is what brand is, that is what it can do. - and that is 40 year old thinking.

Another beautiful Raymond Loewy brand....

[img] [/img]

And I like this one by Lubalin...

[img] [/img]

Everything is marketing

graham - I gave my answer. its a meaningless question.

Yep. I understood "mu" so I promptly restated it in a different manner.

Militant_biker - Member

[i]hilldodger - Member

Conclusion: The amounts of guarana, taurine, and ginseng found in popular energy drinks are far below the amounts expected to deliver either therapeutic benefits or adverse events. However, caffeine and sugar are present in amounts known to cause a variety of adverse health effects.[/i]
Nice!

I fully expect this signal to be lost in the chaotic noise that this thread has become. Let's hope TJ answers this bit.

Not a chance M_b, direct fact based questions are never answered by the bullshiners, in fact it's an excellent way of outing them as trolls 😆

TJ - you have actually lost the plot mate. funny clips though

ELF- you've taken on the equivalent role of those big bald blokes who take away the screaming teen from Simon Cowell's stage as she's going "BUT I CAN SING! I KNOW I CAN!"

I'd want to sit them down with a nice cup of tea and talk to them about stuff, help them calm down and feel a bit better. Don't like seeing people upset. 🙁

As an aside, I have bin contemplating the idea of getting my bike powdercoated in the same colour as JCB diggers.

Yes, that's right, JCB diggers. The ones who, as part of their 'brand identity', are painted a particular shade of yellow, which I call 'JCB Yellow'. If I describe the colour thusly to most people, they immediately know what colour I'm talking about. In fact, you can actually buy paint products called 'JCB Yellow'. It's official RAL code is 1007, but what would you remember/describe it as? Most people, if you mentioned 'RAL 1007', would just look at you blankly. But If I went to the powdercoaters and din't know the RAL code, they would probbly know exactly what I was on about if I asked for 'JCB Yellow'.

See, that's brand power in action, TJ. You could also have Ferrari Red, or Kawasaki Green.

TJ, I have seen you struggling, salmon-like, against a tide of counter-argument on here many times, and sometimes, you have actually bin right, whilst most others have in fact bin wrong. I myself have experienced this, and understand perfectly the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome.

But this time, you are wronger than wrong.

World Champion Olympic Gold Medal Winning Wrong.

[img] [/img]

I think that would be a good colour on my bike. Speshly with it's fat tubes, and with black components. What do others reckon?

Purely responding to the OP and pretending the other billion posts never happened since I've been lucky enough to discuss branding with Jeremy in the pub already 😐

[img] [/img]

Always liked the Canterbury Clothing Company logo, especially since it took me a wee while to spot the kiwis 🙂

My personal favourite

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

Designed by Adelphi Mouron in 1963. A beautiful, elegant, timeless classic that defined a luxurious elegant sophisticated brand (before anyone used the vile word 'aspirational')

Now utterly devalued as a 'brand' as its sold, printed on polo shirts, to Chavs in Sports Direct.

Thats the difference between a 'logo' and a 'brand' TJ. The logo is the same, but its meaning is now utterly debased. Hey ho!

Actually, while we're on yellow stuffs, I always thought the old BT brand was far better than the subsequent and current rebrandings.

[img] [/img]

I'm right though in't I? And the old logo was perfect:

[img] ?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1292351984524[/img]

Taurine - interesting.

It does not detract form the point that the reason I buy high caffine energy drinks is because I need a large shot of caffine to help me stay awake on night shifts, decent coffee is unavailable, pro plus I don't want to be seen taking pills, caffeine drinks are an easily available and palatable way of getting the caffine.

I buy the cheapest palatable one available

Equally there can be negative connotations like the 3 Ks on a pack of Marlboro.

coke is a lower dose of caffine per unit volume and does not contain taurine

Taurine - interesting.

It does not detract form the point that the reason I buy high caffine energy drinks is because I need a large shot of caffine

But that does not explain why you imagined that taurine was remotely relevant.

[i]But that does not explain why you imagined that taurine was remotely relevant. [/i]

'cos the marketing for the brand suggested it might be 😉

'cos the marketing for the brand suggested it might be

[img] [/img]

But that does not explain why you imagined that taurine was remotely relevant.

Because I checked the ingredients of red bull and then checked what the were. it appeared taurine might have some effect. I really did do this.

I would be quite certain that the general public's awareness of taurine was almost nothing until Red Bull came on the scene.
Now it's been both actively (by ads proclaiming it's inclusion) and passsively (bull = taurus = taurine) introduced into the collective consciousness.

Now [i]that's[/i] brand awareness and great marketing 😆

I do wonder how much Red Bull is sold around the world to fund their F1, air races, X sports etc etc. I thought it was a fad a few years back, all be it a well funded one. We had a Red Bull fridge in our student flat full of free Red Bull as one of the guys was a local student rep. I haven't touched the stuff since as I kind of grew out of it but I guess they have maintained the enthusiasm year on year replacing lost customers with new ones.

Now it's been both actively (by ads proclaiming it's inclusion) and passsively (bull = taurus = taurine) introduced into the collective consciousness.

[img] [/img]

LOL! Just seen this thread for the first time.
I work in a distribution centre and ship using Fedex every day.
I've never noticed the arrow in the logo and still had to read the explanation a few lines down under the pic to see it! 😳

I suddenly really need to buy some eggs, so I'll leave you lot to it

Im not reading all 19 pages, but get the gist.

Some might find John Bargh's et al research interesting. I dabbled in some of this type of research in my previous career. There might not be conscious awareness, but people arent impervious to priming from their environment.

His findings include:

- giving someone a hot drink to hold, vs a cold one, results in the subject giving more positive, 'warmer' ratings to an ambiguous person described

- after completing a word search to find word relating to old age, vs neutral words, subjects were slower to walk down the corridor when leaving the lab

- after completing a word scramble game priming for 'achievement', participants performed better than controls on an intelligence test

Okay you've had well over an hour TJ and still not managed to answer my (restated) scenario, so let me expand on your dilemma as I see it.

I try to be pretty careful where I spend my money. Money is a pretty direct way of voting, so I do try to support local businesses and those with ethics, eco-credentials or working practises that I agree with. I often buy local produce and services, even when I could get exactly the same thing cheaper from a big superstore of a multi-national chain.

So I might still [u][b]buy[/b][/u] Coke, but I'd prefer to get it from my local family-owned Spar franchise than from the Tesco Megastore. I know the name of the local farm (Daniel Farm) and I select their [u][b]eggs[/b][/u] over Lyons and Happy Egg Co, even though all are free-range. The local bakery is in Rothbury, I buy their bread over Allinsons. etc etc

To make these decisions I [u]need[/u] to be aware of brands.

If you are truly blind to branding and buy purely on the product/price then are you not in the rather strange position of being a committed "anti-consumerist" who happily supports multi-national giants while letting small businesses fail?

i.e. if brand is really not an influence on you then you should be as happy buying your Falafel & Chicken Wrap from McDonalds as from the Mom & Pop Organic Wholefood shop?

I suddenly really need to buy some eggs

(bull = taurus = taurine)

I think I need a new fridge...

GrahamS

Your question is meaningless as I have told you

You continue to fail to appreciate the difference between the object and the brand.

To make those decision you need to be aware of the qualities [i]of the objects [/i]concerned.

Where you get

happily supports multi-national giants while letting small businesses fail?

One of the inherent attributes of the OBJECT is its embedded energy / its transport miles / its ethical aspect. This is not a product of the branding but inherent in the object.

Rather than inventing weird scenarios to try to trip me up and strange logical leaps to try to disprove me just try to understand what I am saying

Egg-xellent debate.

TJ's so smart he's going for the anti-marketing market.

i hope bill hicks haunts you, re-arranges your furniture at night and stuff you crazy marketing genius.

jamiep - there is also lots of research about simple colour association too - putting people into differently coloured rooms and see how they react. All this stuff is the basis of what goes into the marketing/branding etc.

I need a large shot of caffine to help me stay awake on night shifts, decent coffee is unavailable, pro plus I don't want to be seen taking pills, caffeine drinks are an easily available and palatable way of getting the caffine

I have just the thing to solve this problem.....

[img] [/img]

You can make your caffeine hit as strong as you like & save money.

And what name immediately springs to mind when you think of flasks....?
"Ooooh, it's going to be cold out, dear. Don't forget to fill the [s]Vacuum[/s] [s]Dewar[/s] Thermos"

From Wiki:

A vacuum flask, colloquially called a thermos after a genericized ubiquitous brand...............The vacuum flask was invented by Scottish physicist and chemist Sir James Dewar in 1892 and is sometimes referred to as a Dewar flask, or Dewar bottle, after its inventor. The first vacuum flasks for commercial use were made in 1904 when a German company, Thermos GmbH, was formed. Thermos, their trademark for their flasks, remains a registered trademark in some countries but was declared a genericized trademark in the U.S. in 1963 as it is colloquially synonymous with vacuum flasks in general.

Yeah, but TJ, how's your egg situation?

TJ never does the Hoovering either.

TJ - do you associate red at Christmas, thanks to Santa?

That's the ultimate branding.

and jingles...who would you immediately think of if you needed your windscreen replacing? You might not decide to use them but you probably had that jingle in your head

One of the inherent attributes of the OBJECT is its embedded energy

utter bollox - now who's giving out the marketing schpiel LOL

bahahahaha....

20 pages?

This has gone beyond a yolk.

yeah... I've got egg on my face

it's all down to well laid foundations

it's all down to well laid foundations

Yeah but instead of arguing with TJ or making boring crap jokes, why not post pics of yer fave logos and why you like them? That would be far more benficial to all, surely?

TJ is wrong. I say he is wrong, therefore he is. That's the end of the matter. If he wants to continue arguing, let him. He'll be on his own. Silly TJ.

Why some of you are idiots carry on arguing? If you know you're right, then there's no need to continue arguing, is there?

Right, logos:

Where is from, this one?

[img] [/img]

yer no fun today Elf.

Boring boring elf

Will it make the thousand?

Can't believe I shelled out 30 minutes reading all this pony.

No one has come out of this whiter than white.

Will it make the thousand?

racist!

Rusty Spanner - Member
Can't believe I shelled out 30 minutes reading all this pony.

No has come out of this whiter than white.

Whiter than white, you say. I have just the thing

[img] [/img]

xiphon - Member
TJ - do you associate red at Christmas, thanks to Santa?

That's the ultimate branding.

don't you mean thanks to Coca Cola 😉

Elfinsafety - Member
Why some of you are idiots carry on arguing?

It's not an argument, it's random contradiction 😉

now we've had the edinbugher defence at last 😉

lets get back to the OP.

I quite like this cheeky one:
[img] [/img]

more here [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/grahamsblog/sets/72157626620633288/with/5683781846/ ]CLICk[/url]

hilldodger - Member

"Elfinsafety - Member
Why some of you are idiots carry on arguing? "

It's not an argument, it's random contradiction

[img] [/img]

Sorry.

This has been quite a free ranging topic, I though I'd introduce a little controversy.

No need for verbal assault and battery.

Your question is meaningless as I have told you

I've now offered you three different versions of it? Can you not find meaning in any of them? I didn't think it was that obtuse a question.

One of the inherent attributes of the OBJECT is its embedded energy / its transport miles / its ethical aspect. This is not a product of the branding but inherent in the object.

Okay. I don't eat in McDonalds.

I have eaten in McDonalds in the past, but I found their food to be vile and tasteless.

When McDonalds produces a new burger, happy meal, wrap or whatever then I don't rush in to try it. Instead I use my past experiences of the McDonalds BRAND to decide I shouldn't bother with the new OBJECT.

My wife avoids Nestlé products on the basis of their [url= http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html ]dubious ethics in promoting baby milk[/url].

She is making an ethical decision based on the BRAND. The particular OBJECT she wants (a delicious chocolatey Yorkie bar) is not related to this issue. The bar itself is not particularly unethical, the BRAND is.

Rather than inventing weird scenarios to try to trip me up and strange logical leaps to try to disprove me

Nothing weird or strange. I'm simply exposing the holes in your own logic. That's how I debate.

just try to understand what I am saying

What you seem to be saying is that you are blind to brands and you therefore have no concept what a "tesco", a "mcdonalds", or a "nestle" might be, what their company ethics are, or indeed what they might sell.

And even if you did accidentally stumble on this information, it would have no influence on your buying decision. You're just as happy to buy your "no-name low-calorie high-caffeine drink" from "the tescos" as your local shop - since only the OBJECT matters and the BRAND of the shop selling it is not relevant.

lego

Graham - again you just invent nonsense you claim I have said or you claim is a logical deduction.

Its clearly totally pointless to explain to you as you are unwilling to listen or to open your mind a tiny bit.

What you seem to be saying is that you are blind to brands and you therefore have no concept what a "tesco", a "mcdonalds", or a "nestle" might be, what their company ethics are, or indeed what they might sell.

thats just nonsense and I have not said that.

hilldodger - Member
xiphon - Member
TJ - do you associate red at Christmas, thanks to Santa?
That's the ultimate branding.

don't you mean thanks to Coca Cola

No, Santa. I know he's red thanks to Coca Cola - he used to be green.

But when you think of red, you think of Santa - and when it they start showing the Santa + Coke adverts on TV/billboards, you then start to think of coke...

Another one - diamond engagement rings - another amazingly successful marketing campaign!

[quote=The All Knowledgeable TJ]Its clearly totally pointless to explain to you as you are unwilling to listen or to open your mind a tiny bit.

Oh the irony!

[IMG] [/IMG]

I've opened my mind as wide as it will go but I still can't swallow this. 😯

Okay so you DO know what/who McDonalds are? You are aware of that BRAND, yes? You recognise the famous Golden Arches logo? You've seen them around town. Presumably you are aware of the basic history of the company (American, massively successful, cheap but nasty unhealthy food laced with extra sugar/salt, using direct marketing and even placement in schools to hook in kids at a young age).

How often do you eat there? There are bound to be some near you. They are everywhere.