Mobile Romance

Hey everyone,

I decided to share a sweet pic I got from Idan. What do you think? :)

Technorati Tags: mobile romance, mobile, Idan Aderka, sweet guy, personal

Comments

[Tom Sella]

things to note:
1. both phones are de-branded (both nokias btw)
2. typical stereotypical (not mentioned, but it is clear to my stereotypical mind):
a. male is blue/female is red
b. male is large/female is small
c. female is always ahead of the male

[Xen]

right and also:
the mobile has become a metonymy to the user/human, or at least here at this pic it’s a subject for personification…
hey, talk about the mobile's influence on culture… :)

[Tom Sella]

it may symbolize something to you as the recipient for the image (as you point it out in the subject of the post).
i'm not sure everyone would note the metonymous characteristics, as there are little to use. the phones don't shout out "i'm someone's, i'm special, i'm custom" - but couple that with the de-branding, and maybe _that_ is a subtle personification message of the owner.
more on the de-branding - i have no problem with branding so long it is not intrusive. branding has a special place in our lives, wether we like it or not. the person buying the phone bought a nokia. if he was looking for a cheap phone, he could have got a non-nokia. there is nothing special in the feature set of either phones to merit buying them over other vendors. yet, he bought nokia. so he should have, in my opinion, left the nokia brand intact (unless the silly-putty held logo just fell in his pocket, which i doubt).

[Xen]

regarding the metonymy - you're right - the post's header directs us to that interpretation (as you said yourself "male is blue/female is red")...
and regarding the de-branding - even subtle is a statement, isn't it?

[Tom Sella]

subtle is a statement indeed. still i inquire, why did the owner by a nokia phone?

can de-branding really release one from the brand, or is it a faux-statement?

i was able to recognise the models right away, as i would be able to recognize a logo-less bmw, or an sony tv. does the owner really want beige boxy cars, beige boxy phones, beige boxy shoes? shapes are just as branding as insignias. how can there be a true statement of brandlessness?

[Xen]

de-branding doesn't release one from the brand itself(since the owner actually owns a brand). But pulling off the silly-putty held logo can be a way to leverage the brand to have an anti-brand statement.
Here, I can assume it was an artistic decision to take the 'Nokia' brand out of the pic.

[Tom Sella]

that is exactly my point - if you want to make an anti-brand statement, don't buy a brand!

if its an artistic decision, well, who understands artists? ;) i hope debranding nokias will bring him great fortunes.

[Xen]

well, it's not like they were debranding a nokia n-90 (or any model from the S60 series)... just a kiddy nokia HS :)

[Idan Aderka]

To Tom,

First let me say it was very perceptive of you to notice the subtleties of the picture. It's refreshing to see that someone is actually giving some thought to what I had to say instead of dismissing the picture as 'cute' without another thought.
Now about the branding issue. I like to view the phones in the picture as both branded and de-branded. They're branded because they're obviously nokia but unbranded because the label is missing. They speak of individuality (de-branding and personalising the phone) and conformity (both common and recognizeable models which everyone has). The tension between these two simultanious states is the essence of my message (forgive the artistic stance here...). I want to raise the questions of individualism within conformity or conformity within individualism or their co-exsistance.
Hope I made myself clear, and thanks again for thinking about the picture :)

[Tom Sella]

hi idan,

isn't de-branding just conforming with a different side in this case?

what bothers you with branding to make you want not to conform?

[Idan Aderka]

We can't go any further without defining conformity. If we take the oxford definition then conformity is "Action or behavior in correspondence with socially accepted standards, conventions, rules, or laws". So according to this I'm not really conforming since de-branding isn't socially accepted. Embedded in your question is the assumption that I'm just conforming with a pro-debranding side. That causes several problems since if the mere fact that I agree with someone means I'm conforming with him then conforming is my only choice and individualism does not exist. Someone somewhere will always think the same as I do. Therefore, I think conformity does have to relate to statistically prevalent opinions and not just to agreement.
For your second question, people (mostly) do not think for themselves. They buy products (lets say nokia cell phones for instance) not because of quality, their own needs or any knowledge they possess of the phone. They buy them because they might suffer negative social sanctions if they don't. You're not really cool if you don't have a Nokia. No brands means that products start to speak for themselves and stop hiding behind labels. It means that people may even have to think before they buy - I know, it's sounds like science fiction.

[Tom Sella]

i'm glad to see a well thought out and expressed position.

i disagree de-branding is not socially accepted, on the contrary, and thus my initial questions to you, i think de-branding has become not only socially acceptable, but also hip.

i disagree with you on the second point as well. you are, of course, right about the social sanctions, etc. depending on their social grouping and (i'd like to think) age group.
my issue with the rest of it is a simple one: you expect company x to produce a nondescript product brand-wise (although I think we can all agree that brand is not just a label – its also form, which, for example, made the RAZR so popular, but lets disregard that for a sec), which has the best feature/price ratio. no branding? how can I communicate to my friends about that specific maker or model? should everyone test every thing? THAT is science fiction.
also, please do not forget, that, yes, while there are companies whose only technological advancement/uniqueness is how they market (for example bose), some companies have very rightfully, nokia for instance, gained their brand name (as a reminder: nokia was one of the first to offer multi-line dot-based lcd screens, when others offered single line, or worse. it was the only brand that had a clear vision of gui, which works to this day (piss-poor, imo, symbian not-withstanding), first to recognize the market potential of self-expression by changing phone plates). should they really be punished for being recognized by their (once) superior brand?