Advertising for fast food is so common we don’t even think about it anymore, do we? Who doesn’t know, like they know their own birthday, the McDonald’s jingle? Who doesn’t have any idea what a Blizzard is, besides young, young children?

And, as my final hypothetical question used to prove a point: who doesn’t know that these things are bad for you?

Because, it was to my knowledge that most were raised with the mindset that yes, there is indeed a Pizza Hut—for our purposes there is one on Belcher Road—and sure pizza tastes awesome, and pizza is a “staple” (somehow) of the American diet, but that doesn’t mean we should eat pizza all the time.

The kindergarten lesson was we should not eat unhealthy food every day.

Different world now though. Very different world. Where health, being healthy, is such a dire concern that we have an entire reality show devoted to it.

But, how did this happen?

Well, I am unwilling to say it was only people not having enough willpower. Have you seen what humans are capable of, even in their daily pursuits? Ever tried to perceive the entirety of what we as human beings have done in our relatively small time on this planet? I’m not willing to blame it entirely on people having too big of a sweet tooth or a craving complex.

But what I am willing to blame heavily, is pricing. Why is a soft serve milkshake like a dollar, but a salad often three to five? How is that reasonable? The obvious answer to my own question is that the chemicals and production process to make a cheap milkshake is dramatically less expensive, and thus you can sell it for a lot less. Cut corners, and those corners are money you don’t have to pay—at least upfront.

So, after this wordy roundabout, I come to my point: and what someone higher up on the world’s stage than I, should be advertising.

Making all this cheap food, often on an assembly line, and then making those advertising video spectaculars to get people aware of the cheap food, must cost a lot. Sure, the food is cheap, but the initial stages of instigating the system weren’t, I’d say. Furthermore, I’d argue, by now at least, if one accounts for medical bills and lawsuits and the like, the total is probably equal if not more money than what it would take to work out a healthier food economic ecosystem with less salt and sugar and grease.

This is a little on the line of conspiracy to say, I’ll admit, but, modern day advertisements do a heck of a job convincing us we should indulge again in a burger—whereas fresh lettuce or lean chicken receives almost nary a mention on television.

Insert long, drawn-out suspicious “hmm” here.

The sad part is, though, even if that theory holds water, perhaps we are too late in the cycle for such a thing to change.

But, maybe not.

If more advertising talked about cheap but also healthier food—in the standard lower caloric/higher vitamin content definition of healthy—then health might be less of an issue for people. Chipotle’s ads, for example, do a good job of promoting more organic ideals.

Now, people obviously have choice and free will to make their own food decisions, but one cannot as easily make decisions if the better options are not clear or seen.

And making things known is advertising’s job. This idea has many hurdles, sure. Avoiding the embarrassing stigma of the PSA and not trying to treat people like they are idiots about their own health is a big one.

But it is worth more effort than we give it. A healthier country is worth the effort.

It’s uncomfortable to say sometimes, but the marketing and advertising coming out of our corporations affects us on a marked level. Subconsciously and consciously. So, I implore that those making companies, and running companies, keep this in mind.

And get healthy food choices to be more prominent in our advertising.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

The modern-day fashion industry likely informs what clothes you buy at all the fancy-ish stores. They are the people who determine the common perception of what you would want at Victoria’s Secret, or Windsor Fashions, or Macy’s, or any of the other clothes stores you can find at the mall, like Countryside. And these groups have marketing power which is both baffling and impressive.

Let me put it this way, the phrase “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” is the basic summation of the idea that art and aesthetic is subjective. That what a person, or a group, or a country, finds to be attractive in terms of features, clothing, qualities, etc. is entirely arbitrary and has no basis in anything besides personal taste.

And, though I am unsure of to what degree this is true—I do not have the page space to argue/discuss what is and what is not innate beauty—I can accept the saying as true for this article. But, if that’s indeed true, that means what we find to be high-end clothing is only considered high-end clothing because the industry said so.

I mean, duh, right, Seems obvious. But this is a loop. This is a self-contained marketing loop. If something vastly different from the style now in the fashion world were to branch out, such as a loose-fitting functional version of the potato sack, it would never ever gain real traction. Because the people who determined the arbitrary style beforehand, now conditioned our collective mainstream tastes to not accept the flagrant alternative.

Why is that not beautiful? Why is a potato sack bad? Because we have a standard. But they determined the standard. They chose that style to be superior. The marketing of this is practically palpable.

Now, sure, as any pictures from the 70’s which shows what people wore back then can handily teach, styles shift out eventually. There is a natural changing pattern which overhauls the style to a new standard—or, at least, there appears to be. But, for the ten or so years that each style lasts, these fashions will continue to sit where they do because of the marketing of the fashion moguls and the celebrities paid to wear their wares upon their bodies.       

Now. I don’t mean to sound overall critical. Because I think dressing nicely is a good thing in the right situation. I think people striving for a good appearance—within reason, mind you—is not a bad thing. Esthetics are art, and I’m a big proponent of art. But I also want to point out that marketing is a method of making an idea innate to the public. Fashion is so ingrained: to deviate would seem odd. And, with anything like this, one should be aware of what marketing is telling us.

We do, unequivocally, judge people based on their appearance. And certain people decided, perhaps even arbitrarily, that a good part of how that judgment turns out comes from their tastes and their decisions.

And if something like that goes toward wholesome honest products, then it’s usually fine. But we must be careful. We, and they, need to market with the power of marketing in mind. Marketing can sell good things, change the world even. But powerful enough people can also use marketing to make people perceive wearing bright pink fuzzy hats in the shape of birds as the height of attractiveness.

So, let’s all agree to try to stay careful and smart with this power? Okay?

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

You can promote a show with a single voice. Don’t believe me? Well, if you’re a Doctor Who fan (or a Jessica Jones fan, or Broadchurch, or many others) I think you’ll suddenly find some interest in the new Disney reboot of DuckTales when I tell you one of the main characters is voiced by David Tenant.

This is not a new trick. This is not an uncommon trick. But it works. Oh, yes, it works. And that’s why animation companies use it so much for movies. Animated movies find a huge amount of marketing power and ways to promote through the voice actors—if they are famous for other things.

Like, if you’re an older non-kid individual planning on watching DreamWorks Animation’s The Boss Baby in Countryside Mall’s theaters, I have to imagine it’s partially because you like Alec Baldwin. And, because I am a fan and a promoter of animation, I and others like me should be (and I personally am) okay with this, if it keeps animation as an artform going forward.

From The Secret Life of Pets to Bee Movie this is a tactic using name recognition. But also has a new wrinkle, because lately, and The Boss Baby works as an example of this, some voice roles go rather well to certain actors.

Marvel, as I’ve covered before, can tie an actor to a character, and make them a forever connection, and though this is more temporary, you can do the same with these kinds of animated roles.

The Emperor’s New Groove (and I am aware I am dating myself a little by choosing that movie) is a perfect example of having the right famous person for the right voice. Patrick Warburton, despite playing smarter characters than Kronk, lent a certain level of lovable almost deadpan goofiness to the character, that I think that specific actor pulls off well.

And the methods to promote don’t stop there. Because, yet again, I’m coming back to The Boss Baby for another example: you can use the connection from voice to face, to make a joke.

“Cookies are for closers” is a comedic reference which does not work unless you know the actor tied to the voice. Unless you know him for his live action role in Glengarry Glen Rose. Now, does that kind of joke also make the movie cheesy? Yes, quite a bit. But, it’s not a bad way to promote. It’s somewhat cheap humor, but we live in a cultural landscape that kind of loves referential jokes. Perhaps too much. But, it does work.

And, anyway, will all this said, if you want to make an animated movie, if you want to make an advertisement, if you want to promote something in an animated medium—or even live action if Farmers Insurance and J.K. Simmons have anything to say about it—you can get a real boost by attaching the recognizable voice of someone the crowds already love to a new character you want them to love.

I mean, as one last example, just to fully prove my point, if Morgan Freeman voiced an animated character, you know the movie would practically promote itself with one advertisement.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Sometimes marketing is simple and requires knowledge of only a few basic ideas—backed up by some smart economic decisions. Case and point, who doesn’t like to get a present? Who doesn’t like opening their door and finding a package sealed up and ready to give you a surprise—assuming the surprise is good and wanted?

Even if the gift is not that special, it’s still nice to get something, anything. Ordering a package from Amazon is like that. In fact, I think Amazon should lean heavier on that aspect of their system in their marketing—but I digress.

What I’m referring to today, is Loot Crate. A group you might know of if you are a frequent user of YouTube, as they are one of the companies that buckle down overall on the “using YouTubers as a great form of marketing” strategy I alluded to in a previous article.

And their whole shtick is that they send themed packages to you, at your door, the customer, whether you live in Tampa, Clearwater, Saint Pete, or wherever else, every month. They collect various merchandise (or “loot”) and send it to you in a “crate.” Not exactly a hard thing to comprehend.

But, still the method is genius. And is subtly different from a lot of its contemporaries. With groups like Blue Apron and Dollar Shave Club, they are in the business of making something people do anyway cheaper and more convenient: while Loot Crate, alternatively, focuses on entertainment and fandoms.

The items contained in a loot crate, unless you are in a seriously odd situation, are not necessities of life, or even often overly convenient items. But, what they are, is a collection of tie-in products. They are shirts, figurines, books, etc. which you might want if you are a fan of the associated media franchises.

For instance—and this is the main marketing hook of Loot Crate as far as I can tell—if I am a fan of the video game Fallout 3 (of which I am), and the current crate contains a piece of “loot” themed around that franchise, I might purchase a subscription.

Additionally, the system is also clever for the purveyor of the product: the franchises which they are representing. Because, even in the event I, in this hypothetical situation, am only going for this box to get a figurine of a character from Fallout 3, I might look at some other items within, and decide I like the merchandise enough to explore the related media to it.

Exposure, while not a substitute for actual money, is not useless. And the combination of convenience, value, cross-promotion, and the inherent way that getting a gift is satisfying even when you know what it is becomes a win, win, win to everyone involved.

The provider of the merchandise for Loot Crate gets a chance to hook new fans, generate exposure, either through the person who ordered, or someone around them exposed to the merchandise. And Loot Crate wins because it’s a cool enough concept to get sales—and thus survives as a business. And the consumer gets the gift of stuff they like delivered to them every month like the nerdiest of the nerdy Christmas gifts.

Sometimes effective marketing is just having a good idea and making it known and available for purchase. And in this changing world, places like Loot Crate will find more and more traction as shops in the traditional sense go out of style.

Marketing joy is always “loot” worth going for in your business. So, make sure you put it in whatever type of “crate” you might be selling.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Marketing yourself as an artist is fraught with issues. And the most obvious is something I’ve talked about before: the lack of time or attention available for a piece of art (or anything).

Recommending a show, movie, book, painting, album, what-have-you to someone, while a common enough practice, is not something which is pleasant a lot of the time now. It means more things a person must keep track of in their life. Keeping up with an artistic medium is like a second job.

And, so, to get out art for sale, you are fighting for attention; you are marketing—or at least trying to go about marketing—right into people’s insular bubble of media.

And there’s another hurdle. I promise at the end I will have some positive spin on this, so, don’t worry, but there are more issues. As an artist, you must somehow get into those people’s spaces—and the most obvious way is using social media.

But, as anyone who connects to largely populated artist spaces on social media can tell you, self-promo is rampant. Many (but not all) are pushing to sell copies of something—which is understandable. As a writer, I totally get it. And it’s not even always a bad experience having artists sell their wares like you are walking in an old-time, crowded open-air market.

But there are alternatives to the standard sales pitch. Or, at least, supplementary additions. People do make money making art. They really do, no matter what naysayers may say. And the other ways to do this exists on advice articles all over the internet.

But I’ll condense a few of them here. I’ll list a few ways to market art outside of the normal outflowing promotion. But, I must warn, that some of it is difficult to do, even if it is effective. If you want to see your paintings hung in houses, and your statues erected around Clearwater Beach, if you want your novels to be on the shelves of little shops like One Stoppe Shoppe: then you must play the long game.

With few exceptions, this is the truth of the matter. This marketing, perhaps the best kind, the one that is not spamming until one becomes white noise, is a slower process.

You are trying to create trust with this method. Friendly vibes. What you must do, is create a level of interest and pleasantness. Not a shill, though. Not a cash grab. Your intention matters here. Build your P.R. by interacting with the customers not as customers, but as friends. And then long-term sales can come.

Be personable. Human. Responsive.

Do anything you can to make it feel like you are a friend and not a storefront mega-corporation. Repeat customers and true-blue fans will always trump the random in and out trickle which spam methods net erratically, if at all.

Also, and this is one of the most important parts despite it coming at the end of the article: you must focus your effort on the product. Even the often punchline of fast food jokes McDonald’s makes sure that at the very least, at the absolute minimum, their food tastes good and smells good.

The most impressive marketing campaign in the world will peter out if there is not much to the product. If there is not something about it that truly endears itself to the intended buyers.

Marketing art is a must for an artist who wants to make a living making art. And while alternatives may work, you can do it by being more human. By being more creative. As sociable as you can manage.

Just like creating artwork, good marketing is a matter of the heart. And of people. So, treat it that way.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

What we promote is sometimes not willful. Because our actions are often promoting something whether we explicitly are in favor or against the implications of the action. This has plenty of examples, spreading across moral, ethical, political, and economic subjects. But, here, in this case, I’m talking about cuteness.

Yes, cuteness. You read that right. Because, as I’ve mentioned in another article: the inherent empathic response animals cause in us when we see them can find use when trying to promote. And, in this case, they promote we do not eat them. And us not eating them before, promotes we don’t eat them currently.

Now, I do not wish to step on the toes of any other cultures. For the sake of this argument/opinion/think piece, I am referring to the culture of America only. Cultures and countries and religions all have their own opinions on what animals you can or cannot eat—and that is perfectly fine, obviously.

But when you keep it to only North America, and to only those without religious-based dietary or personal dietary choices we, as people, have an issue with eating most cute animals. Most companion creatures.

For instance, and again, I understand things might be different in other countries, you would not settle down at one of the myriad Clearwater restaurants on Gulf to Bay (I would name a specific place as an example, but I’d imagine no one local wants this scenario attached to them, even hypothetically) and order a cat, a dog, a hamster, or any other cute little fur ball with big eyes.

Sure, some people eat deer and rabbit, and, yes, even squirrel. But that is not the clear majority. We will not eat the same creatures which we like as cute little pets. Or a creature we’d point at a passing pleasant curiosity.

And, though, I do not personally promote eating the adorable little guys, as I grew up in a culture which find such an idea odd and a little saddening, I don’t see why, outside of cuteness and/or the quality of being loyal creatures, we stick so rigidly to these options.

Why, out of everything, with our technological age of modifying at whim, do we limit ourselves—barring some gourmet dishes—to the staples of beef, chicken, pork, and fish?

And, while I’m sure an ecologist could supply some sort of compelling answer to the question, perhaps dealing with availability and societal infrastructure, I think, from a purely mental and sensational level, we can bring ourselves to eat these four and not all the others because of a few select reasons.

The first is that they are all prey animals. Hunted by other predators. And as we are omnivores, we are part predator.  

But, with that said, that still does not make it clear why we would shun, or at least often frown upon, the eating of things like squirrels and gerbils and rabbits. I mean, just taking the reproduction speed of a rabbit as an example, they seem like a possible cheap food source for a world which needs more food sources.

But, we don’t. And it’s a similar reason, probably, to why we are not too keen on eating bugs—no matter the benefits. We are culturally raised, without really questioning it, to associate certain animals as food, and others as not. It’s what our parents served us. An established normal. And there is a lot of convincing power, promotional or otherwise, in an established normal.

Even if something tastes good. Even if someone is not a vegetarian. Even if we have no qualms about what the food companies do to the animals in the name of mass production, we are still picky.

A medically trained person could tell us bugs or gerbils were okay to devour, and we still wouldn’t. Even if we on some level understand it might be better for the planet, we possess deep-seated thoughts and preferences about what we ingest.

Perhaps, if I were to further speculate on the matter, I’d say it’s because eating is so tied to survival. Something hardwired into us. But, regardless, for whatever reason it is, we promote through choices, and I promote through this article, us not eating the adorable. That we don’t, unless it becomes desperate on the world’s stage, eat the cute ones.

It’s a gut feeling. And, when it comes to food, since hunger is often unmarked by anything visible on the human body’s surface, the gut is the main thing we can trust on the matter.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Apple’s iPhone has perhaps the most pervasive marketing in the world of technology. It’s obvious to see. From a technological standpoint, if the many people online and in real life are right, the iPhone is not more powerful than the other things on the market—and yet succeeds anyway.

But, with that said, it does have something above all the competition. Several things. The iPhone has the qualities of being comfort zone appealing, having a strong ease of use, a perceived high level of security, and, to top it off, all other manners of effective sales tactics ensuring that it has customers.

And since an iPhone, perhaps not on purpose, tends to die after around two years of use, and become a brick, it keeps those same qualities fresh in the mind.

Let me break it down: since I just rattled the qualities off and did not elaborate. Being “comfort zone appealing” is something which all products have to some degree, but the iPhone’s user interface makes those of us who grew up with smart phones (often an iPhone) need to run back to the Sprint store in Clearwater Mall for the newest model every single time we need an upgrade.

Why, you might say? Well, ask any older individual, and they have a high probability of telling you just how hard learning to use a new phone can be, so when someone already knows how to use one, they are less likely to want to rely upon a different system and relearn.

This moves right into the second part: the ease of use. Because, say whatever you want about “processing power,” the iPhone is intuitive, and always working to improve that aspect.

Also, as technology progresses, the threat of computer viruses becomes more and more frightful, and thus the perception (and good marketing can give anything a good perception) of iPhones being a safe, “naturally” virus-proof piece of tech is appealing. Easy to go about marketing something if it is safer than other tech—and whether that’s true or not becomes irrelevant to sales.

Finally, to top off my gushing list, the company levels everything it has for the sake of making you want the next device. iPhones receive some of the most stellar advertisements I’ve seen in a long time. They want to make the mouth water of any person who likes esthetics in technology. They want each new model to make your jaw drop to the floor, and your tongue hang to your knees.

Now, bringing this all together, and back to my initial point, these factors combined make for an interesting outcome. Because, sure, maybe some other device is better than the iPhone. Maybe iPhone tech is garbage compared—though I doubt it’s that big of a difference—but it doesn’t matter. Because once you’re an iPhone user, you need a herculean effort to break away.

The situation of iPhones playing nicer with other iPhones through the sheer level of exclusivity that Apple tries to give off with its devices, the prevalence of it in media, and its iconic nature, makes breaking out of the cycle like betraying a friend.

The iPhone is one of the most powerful examples of how good marketing can overcome what some may claim is a shortfall of a product. It is a shining pinnacle of what you can do with perception through marketing and PR.

It’s, for lack of knowledge of a better term, the “iPhone way,” and with it: Apple holds a stake in the world at large.

So, they do have—inarguably—the best phone.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Sports has an effective level of marketing to it if the popularity of American football and “soccer” are any indication. No matter the walk of life, it seems someone can enjoy these sports. But, I say “seems” because there are exceptions.  

Stating the obvious: I’m familiar with nerd culture. Stating the controversial: I don’t like sports.

The term “sportsball,” if one does not know the lingo, is a term used to refer to all ball-based sports by lumping them into one cluster—marking them as a nondescript blob of little importance. And, yes, as a term it’s a little dry and a little pejorative, but sums up the way some nerds and other dorkier members of society see most sports.

They don’t understand the appeal, and I can understand the mindset since I have it.

But, this article is not a smack down of sports. Far from it. One shouldn’t fault or put down those who enjoy the exploits of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers or the Rays. That would get us nowhere. Just widen the gap.

Instead, as a person who does not like sports, I will offer advice on how, anyone, regardless if they are a television producer, local event planner, or Tampa/Clearwater citizen who would just like someone to watch sports with them, can go about marketing to someone like me.

Because like how we nerds can’t understand how someone could not like Star Wars or Doctor Who, sports fans can have that same confusion for the same reasons.

So, let’s batter up some ideas.

·         Make Us Understand.

Seriously, this is the first step to marketing anything. Get the intended public to understand why they would want the product. In this case, why someone should care about sports. Try to explain the appeal, why, specifically, you like the sport. What this sport, or this team, means to you. But also, go one further. Because while you may take for granted that someone would know what a “touchdown” is, non-sports fans don’t necessarily understand any of the terminology.

And, as you can imagine, it’s hard to enjoy even watching a game when you don’t know the rules.

·         Give Sports a Personal Connection.

You know what humans are hardwired to connect with? Other people. You know what holds universal appeal across all of humanity? Stories.

People love a good story.

A group of men fighting another group of men over a ball in the shape of an oval, without context, is dumb. But if suddenly one team, the underdog, comes close to victory—then drama exists. And anyone can enjoy a good human story regardless of the setting.

Just by giving the potential sports fan a clear enemy, or a group to root for, or even a single player on a team which they can connect with, will make them care—when before it was all meaningless. The same way a movie studio goes about marketing the movie’s protagonist will work with a real-life player.

·         Tie It with Other Pleasant Experiences.

Just watching a game, is not enough for some people. Sure, perhaps someone with a long-standing interest in the team will remain entertained even if they are alone on a couch with some nachos.

But, we are not talking about marketing to those people. They are already in the “fan base.” You don’t have to convince them.

But you must convince the non-fan. And a party with friends, or going to a sports bar with friends, or even going to the physical game with friends, would be immensely helpful to the cause. Connect the sport to friendships, and general pleasant moments, and good food. Any piece of media (no matter how awful) is better if viewed with the right people.

Sports is no different.

Marketing through the wall of snide “sportsball” comments is not easy sometimes, but if you want more people to watch, then my three pieces of advice will help.

These things apply to all media. Applicable to all advertisements. Storytelling is a fantastic tool to having good, solid marketing.

So, if you want more sports fans, then you must go for the goal...or whatever other score systems you want to use for this metaphor.  

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Oh boy, here we go: stop marketing that science is lying to everyone.

Okay, let that one sink in for a second. Take a deep breath. Let’s keep this civil. I will try to keep this civil. Despite that being deeply difficult in current America.

Now, science is the process of coming to a workable conclusion after rigorous testing. It is drawing upon a body of tested, proven knowledge and using it so one can predict what will happen in situations like ones which already occurred.

It is quite literally the same way logical thinking works. If the first eighty times pressing a button made a ding sound, you can easily guess what might happen if you pressed it an eighty-first time. If, for example, the tides on Clearwater beach came in at the same rough time every day for the past one hundred years, then I see no reason for them to change now.

And yet...we have people who get rather up in arms about certain things. Allow me to clarify with two points: one, scientists by and large are not in the pockets of evil groups warping facts for the sake of...something, I don’t even know: mind control, maybe? And second: despite what I said, some people in the scientific discipline are indeed paid off. But it is not the majority.

Information being inconvenient does not make it false.

Sorry.

And the marketing of not listening to science is a baffling one. All this advancement, all this stuff we’ve worked so hard to do, all the technology that makes it even possible to have the kind of arguments against science that naysayers do: is because of the advances from scientific research.

I realize I am using the word “science” like I am conjuring a deity or some such, but that’s because science is a huge, sweeping thing. It is a way of thinking: an ideology. Not some group. Not some conspiracy theory.

Science is about proof. Logical conclusions. You cannot “distrust” science as a concept. Because logically thinking about and wanting proof before trusting something, is science.

Oh, sure, we can disagree on some of the more “contentious” things. I believe in global warming but I get that somehow some people don’t. I don’t understand those people, but I can accept that certain aspects of science are still being argued at and that people want even more proof.

But, I mean this in general. I mean “science” as a concept. Stop marketing against it. Stop talking about it like you might say you don’t believe in “chemtrails”. It’s like saying you don’t believe in math, or language, or literature.

Science is a tool. And when applied well, and when we let people continue to try things and conduct experiments: then we walk on the moon, and we have cell phones, and we cure diseases, and we make strides into the future that so many ages of humanity worked towards.

Sure, question what you hear. I am not one to decide what you find to be the truth. But scientists are not someone you should just dismiss with a wave of your hand, even if the data is not comfortable.

Knowing is always more powerful. And denying a problem is the reverse of the first step to solving it.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Do you promote that they keep the politics out of your *insert something you enjoy here*? Because, I am right with you.

Allow me to say something nice about Donald Trump (I am asking permission because some people on the internet do not want me to even do that) and point out how he is a president who made politics so interesting that it is creeping into other channels.

This is the first time I’ve seen so many shows which have nothing to do with politics add in their own two cents on the issues. People apparently cannot help but talk about what to do about this country—and who should oversee it. And, for some, this chatter has become rather annoying: me included.

Media and art (as the two do have a history of working together) exist to fill many human needs, but one of them is escapism. Some people need a way out of the stressful world for a stretch of time. And certain popular creations and services promote you do just that.

And you can’t blame those people. Life can need a little escaping from sometimes, even if you have a nice pleasant job in Clearwater like working at Kara Lynn’s Kitchen or Buzzazz Business Solutions. So, it is understandable why people get mad when all the stuff from the outside world comes right into their bubble of quiet.

But should we take stuff like that out of parts of the media and art? Should the world of books and movies and videogames and radio and such contain a section labeled like a new food product as “free of real life political drama and scandal”?

I guess, if you want to stretch my question’s implications out, I am asking whether trigger warnings, and safe spaces, and curated “safe media” and all the other things certain right-leaning people hate should exist. Should we promote a place free of “challenging media”?  

My answer: yes. Absolutely. I often shy away from digging in my heels and outright stating a political opinion, but yes: we should have places where politics and all other manners of upsetting things should be non-existent.

Now, ignorance is never a good thing. But I don’t fault someone who just wants to spend a night watching something happy, and free of stress. I promote someone can get some peace when it is truly needed.

As a caveat, I’ll be the first to admit this “safe media” idea shouldn’t find use all the time, in every place. Not an enforced rule on existing groups and productions. I don’t promote a dystopian “happy time”. But if we are a country built on the economic model of supply and demand, then clearly such a thing is in demand—and someone should supply if they don’t already.

Stress and the overwhelming stimuli inherent to a technological age can get to anyone. No matter how strong mentally someone is, they may one day want silence about all that is happening in Washington or on Wall Street.  

And yes, you could simply disconnect from all technology for a little while. It’s not like that’s not a choice, and that is fine if someone needs it. But how hard is it to produce one or two things, or offer a room, or a special day, created with someone getting a grip on life and being calm in mind.

What I’m saying. What I am trying to promote: is our minds, like our bodies, deserve an occasional vacation.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Of the places in the world which advertise for physical CD’s by stocking them, I only know of the ones you can find in little wicker baskets in Starbucks, like perhaps the ones in Clearwater Mall, or the ones you can buy at Best Buy or Barnes and Noble, usually in their own area away from everything else but miscellaneous items and DVDs.

And... this is an obvious change from the old world. Physical storage of music is now kind of silly. When we are a society which has iPhones, there’s no understandable reason to prefer those cluttering, outdated storage disks (barring, perhaps, some subtle sound quality changes). Same goes for movies now, and to a lesser extent, video games.

But, though the actual machines of music are thoroughly moving toward the department of the digital, you still get people who’d like to own a record player (or already do). And, perhaps more interestingly, you get people who want the previous sounds.

Oh sure, you’ve got the older generations who say music is not what it used to be. Which, by the way, is a statement totally accurate: because it is different now, and I can understand the want to get back to the old ways of sound. But this is a level deeper than that.

Nostalgia is not just a product the movie industry wants to cash into—to advertise the newest and most appealing ways to jump back in time: the music industry can and does on occasion seek and succeed to hit that sensation too, in several ways. And not only for the sake of the previously mentioned older individuals.

It’s not always even difficult. Sampling, for instance, is not hard at all to work with (assuming you can get the legal rights). You can rip old songs apart as easily for spare parts as anything else.

The practice of paying homage to old songs in other ways is also a growing popular choice. Bruno Mars, for instance, is moving his way into the old decades. Remind someone of the old world, and you got eyes on you.

It’s so easy to advertise what has already come before.  Because someone already did some of the work for you.

And, again, those people who moan about music not being the same, are right. We don’t even always use instruments anymore.

Sometimes, deep in the soul, you want to hear things which sound like the rock and roll of your childhood, or the blues long ago faded in glory. And that’s okay.

The past had a sound. But the world of today is like nothing before in human history, by a wide margin, so it lacks a definitive sound: but it can cannibalize everything that came before it to become more appealing.

You could call that stagnation. You could call that the death of creativity. But originality is a rare thing in a pure form: most is a remix. And we now can, with the right access, remix everything.

No matter what time you grew up in, the musical industry will attempt to cater to what you want to hear. That’s capitalism. They are a business. It’s an artistic “market.”

So, dance to the tune, as they advertise for you to reexperience any decade’s dance floor you want to boogie on all night long (forgive me for that slang). Just bring a wireless device and your best pair of shoes.

Because the old is new again. And musical genres and eras will only get less and less well-defined.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Just when it seemed like Marvel was the king of cross-promotion with its roster of characters, the Lego company goes one deeper. Because, well Marvel has all the characters in its back catalogue to draw upon, Lego now has not only one franchise, but nearly all the big franchises.

Within days of watching the excellent The Lego Batman Movie at Cobb Theater in Countryside Mall (which you should totally go see even if you don’t have kids) it occurred to me that while it was both a pseudo-side story to the Lego Movie and a Batman movie, it was also...a Doctor Who movie, a Harry Potter movie, and a The Lord of The Rings movie among many others. The list, if you look, goes on—but also includes Gremlins of all things.

And with that set as a precedent: knowing that the studio making the Lego movies can draw upon that many franchises (all at once if desired) and with apparent plans to do so...we can predict the Lego franchise never needs to stop, ever.

Sure, Marvel also plans to keep going for the rest of time as it is, but the Lego movies can go anyway they want—they can take any character and cross-promote—and they don’t even have to keep things neat and tidy for the sake of the timeline.

They established that they can do anything.

And...at any other time in history, making a film series about the cross-promotion of characters from many universes would seem insane, and not feasible.  But this is a different world now. And with the endless wit and charm and a surprising (if a little ham-fisted) moral messages the Lego movies up till now have shown, with no flinching or backing off, they have no discernable reason to stop. And no reason for us to ask them to do so if the quality keeps rising—or even just stays the same.

This is another evolution of the media landscape. Everything connected. Sequels, prequels, midquels, etc. we already had an abundance of, but now, crossovers are possible and encouraged.

I’ll admit I fear, with the sheer level of audience’s knowledge of media’s “grammar” and the proclivity of linking everything to anything we are getting in modern day, we may make it impossible for the next generation to even hope to consume the required media it would take to get the context of any single movie.

I mean, you’ll need like a twelve-week course to catch up to modern stuff. Not including franchises across multiple mediums. No wonder some elderly people are flabbergasted by it all.

But, simultaneously, for what it is, and for however long it lasts: this will be the most intensely creative time in our history as a species. From a less serious standpoint, the very tip of the iceberg is all the joking things we might say about who would win in a fight, or an argument, or “wouldn’t those two make a cute couple.” Those questions will not be hypothetical anymore if the movie studios feel like exploring. It’s like the internet spilled into theaters.

As lofty (and as funny) as it is to say: The Lego Batman Movie of all things is a sign of the next wave of what we will get. Not only the sprawling franchises self-contained to their ever-expanding cinematic universes we’re growing used to seeing. But, also, all the franchises co-mingling and cross-promoting themselves to the point they exist as one, super nerdy technicolor mass.

I suppose this is what we wanted. This is what we’ve been building toward. I never imagined a world where I’d see Batman go against King Kong and Daleks at the same time while everyone was plastic bricks.  But here we are. And everything about it is awesome.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Will the advertising of the digital book ever beat out the physical version? Will we live in a world where real life bookstores like Barnes & Noble on Sunset Point do not exist?  Will all books exist only online and people will only read through devices?

I mean...I hope not. Real books have a magic, and a scent, and a texture which no matter how technological we get, we can never replicate (barring digitally/chemically simulated sensations). Wandering a library, like the Clearwater Library, will always be a unique and nigh-mystical experience for those of us literary inclined.

But, the advertising of the digital book has a lot of bullets to its gun. And, as I finished one such book on my phone a few hours before I wrote this (using iBooks, which is my reference point), I figured it was time to address all the things the digital book has as a perk.

Also, though I am talking about books here, keep in mind a lot of these concepts are not exactly inapplicable (if logically altered to fit) to most products to make them more appealing.

Now, the first of the benefits of the digital book is that it saves your place. It remembers where you are in the book. This makes it remarkably easy to pick up the book at any old time, even if you only have a few minutes, and plunge right back into the story.

The next part, which I don’t feel the advertising for digital book hits as hard on as it should: is the matter of there being a dictionary. If you don’t know what some word means, or even what something looks like (which I’ll admit happens to me a lot when someone describes clothing in a book) you can search right on your phone—like you might for any passing curiosity.

You also get benefits like how lightweight the device is, how you can scroll down—and don’t have to take the time to flip pages—and how having it on your phone, as I mentioned before, makes it so it is always with you anyway, as most people carry their phone on them regardless of their reading habits.

But the part which appealed to me, and made me have a little crisis, was when I realized digital books (despite the advertising again not focusing on it as hard as they could) is that you can shift around the word’s size and even color. White on black, for instance. And this made me read faster. I was chewing through one hundred pages in a day. And I mean real pages, not the shortened ones.

The advertising for the digital book would be right, and it would be smart, if it pointed out how much more efficient it is than a physical book. And though I harbor no intention to stop filling up my personal physical library, I get how someone could prefer the alternative.

And if it makes it possible for publishers to advertise that more people read again—because it really is super easy when you have it on your phone, and sometimes cheaper—then that is nothing but positive for the world.

Reading is good for people. It is good for the brain. I’m advertising that, and so is the new-ish technology. And that is something worth writing about. Even if it makes me somewhat uncomfortable.

Because stories need to continue to live. For the sake of everyone.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

The point of many of my articles is to give attention to the effective and positive PR certain groups manage to garner through clever methods. And, I’ll also, in most of those same articles, talk about the fringe potential or active controversies of those same effective PR methods.  

Well, now we are on the big one. The positive and negative aspects of this topic are so huge it would, and could, take multiple articles to talk about—but a lot of this you should already know and understand just by being a person in the modern day. So, there’s no need to go over it in extreme detail.

Because I’m talking about the internet. Not that that wasn’t obvious from the title. But, seriously, the internet is a beehive with a lot of stingers and honey.

PR is how the world perceives you. And everyone perceives the internet. It’s not a company, it’s not even a single entity, but we all brought it into our lives and we can’t live without it now.

If we were hunting for the biggest success story of anything...well, ever, then the internet fits the bill to a tee. The world fully warped by its existence, can’t get larger than that.

The internet changed how people live, think, and understand their environment. While our attention spans and memories might grow weaker, we now have the collective expertise of all human knowledge always right there, interconnecting us. Being ignorant of something, anything, in the post-internet age is a willful act of ignorance.

To not know, is to not want to know.

But, of course, that leads to problems. PR or otherwise. Now, let me clarify: the internet could produce spiders from random monitors every twelve days, and it would still not stop being used. We literally cannot live effectively in this world anymore without it. Doesn’t matter if you work at a restaurant like Kara Lynn’s Kitchen or even at any of Clearwater’s public libraries.  But that does not mean it does not have problems. You can’t go into someone’s brain and steal data (yet anyway), for instance, but take someone’s passwords... and well...

Since we let technology be a part of our lives, we live with the tradeoff of having dangers which come with our lives being somewhat digital. Which can be scary.

But, instant communication, collective human effort toward a goal regardless of geographical location, and an intense amount of storage space, among many other benefits, makes the PR too great for the internet to falter—ever.

We have a lot to learn from the internet—and it will learn from us as well once artificial intelligence is up and running efficiently. And one of the best lessons we are already getting is humans, as social creatures, desire the connection to other people perhaps above all else. Any product which makes that more possible is likely to have a lot of want and need for it—as humanity somehow feels less and less “really” connected because of the lack of physical contact inherent to digital spaces. Somewhat paradoxical, I know. But that’s what people can feel sometimes.

Anything a businessperson or layman can come up with which aids and promotes interconnectivity on the internet (or in other places) holds power, and if not too many deviants use that newly created connection to do harm to others during its initial run, you have an automatic PR boost. So many people are trying to make the next Facebook or Twitter for this reason—and of course to make money. I’m looking at you Snapchat.

But that boost is only nigh-guaranteed if enough people see these efforts to create interconnectivity. Then you get the success. But, luckily, there’s already a platform to get out that sort of thing to a wider audience.  And you already know what its name is.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Everyone wants to be healthy—if the advertising around the internet is any sign. Though, that logical inference was obvious without a banner ad to confirm. But the controversy over what is and is not healthy is so raging and so fraught with pitfalls that we have conflicting answers to the simple question of what will help us live longer.

The fact it includes that aspect, by the way, the bit about living longer, makes it even more likely for people to be irrational on the subject. Add to the cocktail the fact a basic hamburger is often cheaper than a decent salad and you get an economic-laced powder keg likely to explode if you talk to anyone, anywhere, for more than a few minutes about health.

Between Vegans and Vegetarians and Paleo people, and all those who actively dislike those types, you’ll get so many opinions that even when science claims a concrete answer—like the food pyramid—people won’t listen/care.

And, partially, the reason for this problem is that each body is different. It really is. If that wasn’t true, then why so many arguments? Some fad diets worked for a few, but that does not mean it will work for everyone.

But people want the easy answer. And Nature’s Food Patch on Cleveland Street and Whole Foods attached to Countryside Mall both have the inherent advertising that if you go to them you don’t need to think nearly as hard about the things which might be healthy for you. Their food, by design, barely contains any of the boogeymen of the culinary world. And even if GMO is cool for the human body, like some argue, you don’t have to take the risk at those stores.

And being the safe choice is, yet again, great advertising. No one wants the added stress of if their body is doing okay on top of the usual worries of the world.

Sure, some blessed people can eat ice cream on a whim with no lasting weight shifts. But for the rest of us, we are in a constant battle for health. Not always a brutal fight—thankfully—but a fight nonetheless. And the advertising which offers the easiest solution will get the sale.

Now, I am not saying for some scam artists to benefit from this—though some people clearly already are, “snake oil” is a term for a reason—but if you have a way to help people, if you can make some people well, you owe it to your own wallet, and to humanity, to put yourself in a place where they can see you and your product. This stretches beyond health too.  

But, health, especially, is a big enough concern for enough people, that if you really can help, then use the benefits of advertising the world has already to get as many feet in your door as possible.

Until someone works out a machine which can tell what is good for each person, and then dispense food made to that specification, even down to the exact quantity—along with regimenting exercise—this is what we’ve got. Until we live in a science fiction future of organized health, we must rely on the right people, being offered the right reigns, and always being better seen than a scam.

Don’t just do what a celebrity said to do, is what I am saying. And don’t think the restaurants of the world are inherently okay for you because the FDA lets them serve. All that means is that it is edible.

Listen for the right advertising for you.  Being healthy is possible. Even if the world makes it hard sometimes.

---

In the modern world, we are a part of branding. We, the people living in modern society, shout our spending habits and brand habits to the world without saying a single, solitary syllable. You, the person reading this, are saying, are promoting, a brand right now, almost for certain. Unless you are the most generically dressed person in the world.

If you are in a public place, look around: and there it is. Logos on shirts, logos on pants, apple-shaped pictures shining on the backs of phones, hats with sports logos, even possibly brand names on wristbands.

We wear companies like we are living advertisement banners. And this is, of course, not limited to the confines of normal brands—it’s also fandoms and media franchises. Over the course of a single day, I saw more Star Wars and Star Trek shirts than I own (and keep in mind I am a nerd).

Even when we don’t wear stuff with specific logos emblazoned like a flag for a company, we still refer to clothing by their brands. At the higher end of the spectrum, we know of styles by the places who make them. For instance, go to Macy's in Countryside Mall, and if you were to ask for just “jeans” you’d have a huge wall to deal with; the communication is understood—if vague. But, say something like “I want Calvin Klein,” and they can lock right onto the exact thing. There is a specific zone for them. Specific shelves.

And the fact we appreciate people, or at least envy, those who can wear the super nice brands, the ones who go around in Gucci’s, is a success of marketing so deep and stunning it’s kind of scary to examine the implications (which could be an article by itself, so I’ll leave it alone for now).

Though, as a disclaimer, funny enough, this sort of brand connection can go too far. Branding can be too successful. Remember that Kleenex, and Xerox, and Google, and Coke, are all brand names which can also be used to mean “a face/nasal wipe”, “to copy a paper”, “to search online”, and “a sugary carbonated beverage”, respectively. They need not mean the same brand as to where the trademark belongs, at least in common parlance.

But, the fashion industry for now does not have this problem. Yet. No one I know of refers to all jeans as “Calvin Klein’s”...yet. We must wait and see: I suppose. For now, though, fashion’s branding success shows to the average company the power that can come from doing one thing well and being known for it. When your name is on the lips of someone looking for quality: that’s a super power. When a shopkeeper is more than likely to know a brand’s name just by (positive) reputation: that’s a sure sign of success.

All companies want this—even if they do not sell clothes. And, to achieve it, the methods are: going for quality, having a visually strong logo, having a catchy clever name, and getting in front of the right target eyeballs. Sell shirts, sell mugs, sell things with your brand on them—and make them known for their use or esthetic. Make a product or a service someone can brag about having—even if you must make it somewhat more expensive to make it look and feel right.

And trust me, like the brands like Star Wars, if you do it well enough, people will become walking, talking, word-of-mouth spreading, preachers of your company’s quality. They’ll advertise for you. They’ll meet your branding goals halfway. Which is already plenty for success.

---

The problem with being young after 2016, and perhaps it is also a blessing to promote as such (if only to lessen grief), is I had no exposure to most of the celebrities we lost, and thus do not have as deep a connection to them as I could. Some were just names to me—no matter how special they may have been.  No matter how important. I did not grow up listening to David Bowie, for instance. The only loss I felt strongly was Alan Rickman—and that’s because I am a nerd.

But, for today, I understand the loss. Because I’ve seen the work of John Hurt—deceased on the 25^th of January, 2017. I knew him. I knew of him because he was on Doctor Who. As the War Doctor.

But he was more than a character.

He was a person.

And, the problem with fame is we sometimes forget that. And I wish I could say more on his real-life portion. Promote the humanizing of these people we love to watch.

But, since I am in no position to speak on his personal life, I can point out this man was a legend among nerds. He is part of nerd culture as thoroughly as Alan, as Gene Roddenberry, as Nimoy. In case you did not know, here’s a quick list of some of the iconic shows and movies he was a part of:

The voice of the dragon in Merlin.

The wand maker in Harry Potter.

The guy the alien came out of in Alien.

He was in V for Vendetta, Hellboy, and, per IMDB, he was even in Mel Brooks’ Spaceballs.

That is a huge contribution. The fact of Alien alone, as the person who had the chestburster do its namesake, makes him a permanent and enduring part of cinema history. A cultural icon, a part of the media landscape, one anyone going into Cobb Theater at Countryside Mall will know by heart.

He was also prolific. This was an actor who just kept doing roles no matter how old he got. I can’t speak for certain—again, I didn’t know him personally—but that promotes he had dedication to his craft. A love of being in art.

He was even in movies yet to release—if indeed they do release. Sometimes they aren’t, in respect for the actor.

So, with all this said, I thank you, John Hurt, with one voice of a nerd, and I hope echoing many. I thank you for giving life to the characters we loved, and lending joy to people who may have needed it more than we or you knew. As I’ve said before in voice and in articles, the arts are important—and you gave a huge part of your life to keep them going.

Another one of the greats fell, now in 2017, instead of in 2016, and I hope we’ve finished with that trend. Start over fresh. I promote, to the utmost degree I can promote such a thing, that the rest of this year is full of spectacular people doing incredible and artistic things, without so much loss.

And I think everyone can get behind me on that one, not just the nerds of the world.  

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

A company that fails is often guilty of not following the idea of supply and demand in either their marketing or their general practices. They do not do (or promote) what the majority wants, in the way the majority wants, and thus: not enough customers. It’s an old joke about the pretentious “auteur” or “visionary” who goes experimental and against the grain, and then is somehow...somehow, baffled that he did not get the support/sales he wanted.

Sure, leveled at an artist, this joke seems fitting sometimes, but the fact it applies to businesses too might not be as obvious. Gimmick sales are not the stuff of long-term successful business practices.

But here’s the odd thing. The thing I want to talk about with you here: experimentation in marketing and running a business. And how experimentations’ existence and sometimes application is fickle but necessary.

Let me say two ideas which make it hard for a new or small business to flourish: people like what they know and often have access to what they like already.

Breaking it down further: people like hamburgers. Wait! I have a point here.  If the stereotype toward Americans is true, and if the stereotype about us Southerners is true, people here in Clearwater really like hamburgers. And we have places like Five Guys in Clearwater Mall to supply us with top quality ones. There’s also McDonald’s for the cheaper side of the same want.

And thus, a problem for a new business that may want to sell hamburgers. Because if you are trying to go for what’s wanted, and what people are already buying, you’re in instant competition against the well-established brands. You need to break through the mental, already placed there, barrier that is those existing group’s marketing. And that is hard. Almost impossible sometimes.

You would have to do something better than them.

And that’s the next part to this. Because you have two choices in this situation (because I don’t consider quitting a choice). Be better than the established brands, or do something different.

But, I may hear you ask, if the whole point of the “do what people want” idea is to do what people already want, then why be different? How could experimentation be a good idea?

Well, because it is. Welcome to the gamble. Every one of the major and powerful businesses in the world started out as an idea. An idea which possibly seemed odd or stupid.        

Some people thought television was a bad idea. People thought no one would use it.

But this does not mean it is easy to be like those successes. The world of business is cutthroat, and the only way to survive is to be phenomenally better/cheaper than the alternative, or to do something which people want and need and will love but they just don’t know it yet. And it’s hard to know what is not known yet.

Both are a gamble. But, if you want to make a business, your best shot is clever marketing and advertising of yourself, and your group, and your creations, and doing all you can to make it work.

And, since you’re reading this post, and are on this website, you’re already in the right place for some advice on marketing. So, get reading. Then get producing. A good idea, whether conventional or not, needs the iron well and truly hot for a strike. The world changes fast.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Due to caffeine’s effective marketing pitch of being almost necessary to modern life, statistically, you go into coffee shops often. And, since you do, you probably have ogled a random painting hanging on the shop’s walls, or an artisanal ceramic on a little table, or a collection of CDs for some band you’ve never heard of—ever—in a wicker bin. Or, perhaps, you went to the Pierce Street Market under the bridge leading toward Clearwater Beach, and looked at all the cute and quirky and sometimes rather gorgeous pieces of art. But, here’s the question: do you ever buy any of it?

Does anyone ever seem to buy those sorts of things? I can’t recall ever seeing someone walking away with one of the hundred dollar paintings of the sea or something of that ilk.

And, as a person who makes art, I am not a fan of this outcome. But I understand where it is coming from, and why this happens. And why many people ultimately fail to make a living out of making just art.

It’s the economy, let’s get that out of the way. Money plays a role, obviously.  But it’s not that alone. Art HAS inherent worth. It is perhaps one of the most important things to human happiness. Outside of the necessary to life things like food and sleep and water, humans crave mental stimulation. The urge to become engaged by something creative is the biggest and perhaps, on an underlying level, the entire reason the movie industry and Netflix and YouTube are such smash hits and juggernauts of the world. But, the issue with creation nowadays is not a lack of demand: it is a lack of attention and funds. We humans are such a huge population with varying habits and likes, and the ability to make art (and the drive to make art) is so powerful and so common, that getting noticed is hard amongst your fellow members of the species, even in a niche.

What I mean is, no matter how much work and craftsmanship went into that wooden wolf on a lacquered stand with intricate tribal symbols carved all over it, if you are charging more than a few dollars for the piece, you have a likely incoming issue of finding someone who can or will purchase such a thing without some major marketing push.

We have access to so much media, a flood, in fact, that the only way to remain sane is to flit from thing to thing or ignore the bulk entirely. The amount of stuff free (or just requiring a subscription fee or internet access) is so staggering, and people like their screens so much, that certain art has a real issue being seen or receiving more than a little attention.

It’s a problem which heavily hits crafts and carvings and paintings and statues and anything else physical. Sure, placing all that stuff around a home livens it up, but a lot of people—especially with the turbulent financial stress adults have been going through as of late—can’t or won’t put down the money for another thing in their house.

But, again, I believe physical art has a reason to exist and should be more financially viable—without hurting the artists of the world. I’m just sad to say I am not as helpful to this advice-wise as with other topics. I don’t know the solution yet.

It will take a supreme act of marketing, or a revolutionary change in outlook, to solve this problem. It will not be easy. But it is worth striving for, it is worth achieving. Culture needs physical art. I love technology, but that doesn’t mean all creation should be digital.   

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com

Let me get one thing straight before I start talking about the PR of animals: I like dogs, and cats, and rabbits, and animals in general. So, however odd this topic might go, I am not advocating anything negative happen to most. I say “most” because I am not a vegetarian. Beef, pork, chicken, turkey, fish, all of that—I have no qualms about it. I’ll order a steak at an Outback Steakhouse, say the one in Largo or Palm Harbor, without remorse.

But I get the reason some people cannot bring themselves to chow down on animals: because something about creatures of the earth, especially cute ones, elicits a feeling of needing to protect, to nurture, to care for them the best we can.

In fact, many people focus a huge chunk of their life on helping and keeping animals from harm. And, in a roundabout way, that is because animals have some of the best P.R. in the organic kingdom.

Now, we, as humans, if you consider our species an “animal” (I mean this in the definition sense, not trying for a philosophical argument about souls and “personhood” or anything here) are the masters of our environment. And despite our ability to bend the world to our whims if we want, we care for our fellow animals like we owe it to them.

And this is because of empathy, mostly. Most people can’t stand to see an animal in pain. It triggers a deep-seated drive inside us, and we must try to do something to avoid it suffering. The whimpering of a dog is enough to set a person on edge.

Now, going back a bit, in addition to plain empathy, we may also actually “owe” them something. Animals have been helping us as a species for a long time, and only with the recent—relative to humanity’s existence—advent of machines which can do the bulk of grunt work, we have had to rely on strong or overworked people (I am aware of the historical context there, let’s not get into it) and pack animals to do most of the work.  Even if we don’t need them for that as much anymore, we should still be nicer to them.

And, funny enough, this inherent good PR to animals is useful for marketing. It’s good for sales. Why else would most mascots be animals or objects made to look like animals? Appealing to the base drive of a person is a trick common to media. Beautiful people, succulent food, power fantasies, wealth, the urge for a deal, and cute things are all ways to draw someone in—to get them to pay.

Cuteness can hit a saturation point, sure, but helping animals is a thing almost everyone wants to do. So, working that in as something your company does—is a plus. Even just having a “pet” in an office (if not too distracting) is a way to make humans feel happier, more cooperative.

It’s something animal lovers have known for forever, that animals are sometimes much better than humans. Even at garnering positive PR.

---

If you liked this article, you can read more of Brandon Scott’s work over at The Hive, or on his website: www.coolerbs.com