I’ve been doing design work for Woodward Camp since 2006-ish. I do the catalogs every year, as well as a lot of the advertising, collateral, shirts, etc. They’re growing constantly, even expanding internationally, and there’s always something new going on, so it’s fun stuff. We work with a number of different brands in our office, both big and small, but Woodward is one of the most consistent. This year’s print and web look started with a sheet of steel in my garage, a few stencils, and some muriatic acid. The resulting rusty steel textures got used as subtle elements in the catalogs this year, but they take on more of a roll in the ads. Essentially, I quick-rusted the area around the stencil with the acid and water, then shot photos of the result to use in the designs. The textures got worked in with some provided action photography (I shot the BMX ad of Morgan Wade) and we were off and running. We also worked QR codes into the print campaign this year, to direct readers to the various Woodward web portals by simply scanning them with their smart phone. See the ads after the jump.

Woodward did a larger online marketing push this year than in previous years. We used the tagline “Come Ride With Us” and “Come Skate With Us” throughout the online campaign. Here’s a small sampling of those ads, which are currently running in a number of sizes and iterations.

Much of big-business still hasn’t caught up to, or educated themselves in new media, its power, and its differences, and soon it’s going to be too late. As a “magazine guy” I’m a bit sensitive to advertising’s stranglehold on editorial. It has always existed, but as magazines continue to struggle to survive in a world with too many advertising options, it has only gotten worse over the last few years. So much so that advertisers can and do demand editorial control.

I barely snowboard, and I don’t even really like snowboarding. I suppose it’s fun, and I like looking at the photos, but beyond that, whatever. That being said, YoBeat.com, one of the largest independent snowboard sites, shares a studio space with me in Portland, and I work closely with the site. In our office, as media people, the site is a gauge of how people use the internet and experiment in media, as much as it is a content outlet. It’s teaching us a lot about how things have changed and where they are going. In my opinon, you can’t work with clients in a new media capacity unless you truly understand how real people use the internet (not just pretend to be an expert and read studies of current trends).

So, how the media works is of great interest to me. I like it. I also like the fact that new media has changed a lot of things. While admittedly new media is riding a merry-go-round of how to make money, it does benefit from smaller scale, lower overhead operations like YoBeat, who can reach anyone with a computer around the world. Opinions and content are no longer limited to 150 pages once a month, distributed to 40k people. The reach is nearly limitless. And while sites like YoBeat currently depend on advertising revenue as print did, brands also benefit hugely from involvement with them, and by cost comparison standards, very inexpensively. But the catch for advertisers is, that smaller overhead, larger audience, and immediacy give these new media outlets much more control to say “fuck you” to advertising control. They’re gaining crowd control and advertisers are freaking the fuck out.

I would argue that we’re reaching a point where media (media with an established niche audience) will have more control than potential advertisers. With too many doors out there, brands are going to need people backing them. There are countless sites online, but a small percentage with value. These days, essentially anyone can start their own media outlet. And a niche site with a regular audience is a huge value to a brand. These brands can save money over old world advertising, and reach larger audiences on a daily basis. So with this new (I believe soon-to-be) power, brands have less room to make demanding content controlling phone calls.

What is the point of this? Recently Jake Burton (owner of Burton Snowboards) held his annual Fall Bash at his compound in the Northeast. It’s a party, a fucking party. It’s an invite only event (the invite being a glossy postcard hyping it up as if it’s a Hollywood party) but at the same time it’s far from exclusive. I mean, shit, YoBeat got invited. So Brooke from YoBeat flew across the country to attend, and because YoBeat is media, she wrote a story about it. A sarcastic story. That’s what YoBeat does. The site is called YoBeat: Making fun of Snowboarding. But the story in no way slammed Burton, or made them look bad. It would have drifted off the main page in a few days. If you have a party in 2009, a big party, someone is going to write about it on the internet.

That’s where things take a turn for the worse. One of Burton’s subsidiary brands, who advertise on YoBeat, called demanding the story be removed. Allegedly, someone was concerned about losing their job for inviting Brooke. That person did nothing wrong. Nor did Brooke (The story would have faded into obscurity were it not for an anonymous hater from inside Burton’s ranks, which we’ll talk about in a minute). They made demands and pulled the ad contract bullshit that every company has used as their gateway to controlling the print media for years.

In the interest of saving a friends job, Brooke pulled the story down. It had nothing to do with advertising demands, and I even suggested it be put back up right away to alleviate those accusations. In the meantime, hate comments were being left on the story (which we’ve verified to have come from inside Burton’s office). Nothing of a valid business sort, but comments calling Brooke fat. In otherwords, a waste of Burton’s company time. Since anonymous comments are in fact, not anonymous (IP addresses are fingerprints folks), it was very easy to see these attacks were from inside Burton without using their own names. Bold to anonymously hate, right? Fortunately someone else picked up on the original story before it was taken off YoBeat so you can see the whole thing here or even here.

Brooke then went on to write a blog on her personal site about the current state of the media on her own site. It’s by no means a new topic, and doesn’t mention Burton, but again, the Burton anonymous commenter began dragging the brand through the mud. Making Burton look like a bunch of Social-media challenged nitwits, and making it very clear that the original story should have stayed up in the first place. Somehow, not only had Burton made a small-time story that would have gone away a big deal, they had made a blog about the state of the media into a comment battle about Burton. They brand-bashed themselves.

Instead of being a transparent, modern brand, Burton had its insiders posting anonymous hate comments all over YoBeat and Brooke’s blog. A great use of company time, and an obvious tarnish to the brand.

The point of this is that brands need to realize that new media is different, and the nature of it is such that brands can’t control it. Quite frankly they’re scared shitless and the panic this whole thing caused Burton is an obvious sign of that. But when it comes down to it these brands are ultimately (still) going to need the media down the line. So what do they do? They’re losing control.

The fact is that brands and media can work together to benefit each other without one expressing control over the other, and in a sport like snowboarding that’s how it should be. This shit is supposed to be fun, and shouldn’t be governed by demanding phone calls and threats.

I would suggest that brands like Burton get on top of new media sooner than later, as this PR disaster was created completely by the company itself. A little bit of education in evolution of media can go a long way. When it comes down to it, 2009 is a time where people are posting anything and everything on the internet as it happens. They’re Twittering, Facebook updating, blogging on Posterous, and more, many times right from their cell phones at the event. To host an event, invite the media, and expect it not to be mentioned (which by the way seems like a GOOD thing to just about everyone who read that YoBeat post) is a little bit ignorant, and quite frankly counterproductive. And if you absolutely must not have it mentioned by said journalists, perhaps notifying them before they fly cross country is sensible? Make sure the event is embargoed. Come on now, guys. Get on it.

Other blogs are also talking about this, including this one.

Update: Former Olympian and Omatic Snowboard’s owner Todd Richard’s chimes in on this subject in an amazing Q&A over on YoBeat.

In the midst of a chaotic day, you’ve still got to find time for pitching new work. So, with Nike’s recent signing of dog-fighting football player Michael Vick, I developed the above ad pitch, which could easily evolve into a full campaign. You know, people love puppies. But I don’t think I’m going to get any bites on this one. If nothing else, it got reTweeted a lot. Photo borrowed from Google Image Search for illustrative/concept purposes.

Yesterday I wrote a post about advertising and editorial relationships specifically as the issue pertains to a recent snowboard magazine cover. The bulk of that thought involved the compensation for Photographers, writers, and even the athletes when the editorial becomes an ad campaign. This post was to draw attention to Mike Berard’s great post and discussion on the subject.

Later in the day I added a note to the post:
The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

This morning I thinking further about the significance of this. I’ve posted two recent covers above. One is the TWS in question, with a company’s logo allegedly added in post production (and allegedly without the rider in the photo, who doesn’t get paid ensorsement from BPF, having knowledge of it), and the other is a recent cover of the BMX Magazine Dig (which I was reminded of by @harrisonboyce on Twitter). In all reality, the branding on the Dig cover is far more “in your face” yet there can be little debate over it. Levis and Monster energy both pay Jamie Bestwick to endorse their product. The benefit being that Jamie, one of the best in the world on a BMX bike, is associated with their products in the eyes of his fans and readers of BMX media. Jamie is paid to represent those brands when he gets coverage for his skills, like on the cover above. Those brands support Jamie in his efforts to do what he does, and he supports them. They’ve essentially worked with Jamie to get that cover exposure.

The snow cover has less prominent branding, allegedly added after the fact, to a photo from a Team Shootout presented by an advertiser. A huge factor that no one has been talking about (or maybe even considered until I wrote about it yesterday) regards the athlete endorsements. Despite the fact that Jamie wins nearly every competition he attends, he still depends on endorsements not only for income but for support. A winning rider like Jamie is an exception even. The majority of athletes in action sports who compete on a professional level go into competitions with the “I have to get at least 8th place to eat next week.” That’s a lot of pressure. Winning is a lot easier when that pressure is off. The brands benefit, and the riders benefit. Endemic companies like BMX brands and snowboard manufacturers often have low margins and are able to pay their athletes very little salary. Those non-endemic brands become that much more important. A rider like LNP is paid by brands like Rome Snowboards to produce video parts and get coverage like this particular TWS cover. The brand and the athlete are in a relationship and they work hard to promote each other’s interests.

So back to the question this all raises. Now I know that Levis is down for BMX, and has been remarkably supportive in their program over the last few years. But if the high ups at brands like Levis are presented with the opportunity to have their brand positioned prominently every time, why wouldn’t they go for it? Even the best in the world doesn’t get a magazine cover every month. But print and online coverage is one of the things a brand hopes to get out of a top rider. If they can buy their way onto a prominent position, what’s their incentive to support the athletes day in and day out? As much as some of these brands have done great things and been incredibly supportive, they are in it for the money.

There is no question that new relationships need to develop between print and advertising in order for these publications to survive. But to what extent should those lines be blurred, and what is in the best interests of the professionals who make these sports what they are? While the Team Shootout was a sponsored feature, presented by an advertiser, it’s not presented that way on the cover, at least in my opinion as a reader. I’m all for sponsored content, but what’s next? Adding a delicious looking product to a rider’s hand? We are on a scary and slippery slope. A slope who’s only interest in mind might be keeping a magazine around a few extra months. At what point do you pull in the reigns?

In reality I’m presenting these issues more as questions and points of thoughts than as criticisms of Transworld. I think there are some big picture issues here in regards to publishing, media, and action sports that need to be discussed. It’s not the advertisers fault, they are just looking for the best marketing opportunities to reach out to their consumers. They should be doing anything they can to send their message. It’s the Publisher who makes the ultimate decision.

The first magazine job I got in 1996 was a real shocker. I quickly learned that content was diluted and often dictated by the advertisers. The appeasing of advertisers wasn’t a shock. The extent to which it happened was.

For years editorial and advertising relationships have been hidden, shunned and disputed. But they are there. The issue is in how those relationships are presented. Branded content is prevalent on the internet, but for some reason many still hold print in a higher regard when it comes to professional journalism. But now that branded content has been happening on the print front it’s causing quite a stir. ESPN magazine got their throats jumped down earlier this year just as Vogue did many years ago. But it’s all changing.

This month’s Transworld Snowboarding cover has caused one heck of a stir. Mike Berard’s site has a post on it (and you can see the cover in question there), where a discussion has begun (to which I left a comment). I will say this: I am not opposed to branded content. I’m opposed to advertiser directed journalism. I think at this point we’re at a societal point where these things aren’t going to exist unless they are branded. How much of that gets brand driven? Colors Magazine, funded by Benetton, was one of the most culturally aware publications ever produced. But few brands would agree to such subtle involvement. We are a “make the logo bigger” society.

My question in the whole mess regards photographers and writers. When they produce advertising content they are compensated very differently then with editorial because they are selling a product. While a Transworld cover may only pay several hundred dollars, an advertisement for a non-endemic brand can pay in excess of $10,000. Photographers make very little money off of editorial and writers are in the same boat. They depend on licensing for advertising. Without that licensing the photographer’s career is going to be a thing of the past. The question is, if your photo appears on the cover of a magazine with a logo super-imposed, is it editorial, or is it advertising? To me, in my opinion, it is advertising. The licensing fee should reflect that. Is the athlete compensated for their involvement in this advertisement? They’d better be. You can read more on Mike’s blog and chime in.

Edit Note: The biggest, and most important question I see (and one that no one seems to be asking) is this — If brand X can pay to insert its logo on any photo in a magazine, in the case of TWS a cover shot, what incentive do they have to sponsor athletes?

Maybe I’ll start adding the above “Consume” watermark to all my images that get used in print? Would that be a problem?

For the most part internet ads are all just gray boxes to me. I tend to see right past almost all of it. But a little while ago I came across a Facebook sidebar ad featuring Shaun White, and the goofy thumbnail was such that I couldn’t resist. It brought me to this Hewlett Packard micro site that I found pretty amazing. Sit there and watch Shaun for a bit. It’s amazing really. His awkwardness and goofy sense of humor comes across and makes this one of the best little web diddy’s I’ve seen in a long time. The great thing about Shaun is that his personality isn’t getting eliminated from all the promotions he’s doing for huge corporations like Target and HP. The personality is all Shaun.

When I went back to take the screenshot above I was more impressed. The site is smart enough to recognize you as a return visitor, and Shaun greets you with “It’s you again… back to look at more clips?” and then another refresh greeted me with “Haven’t I seen you here before? You come here a lot! Have at it.” Really, really smart. He even throws in a Big Lebowski reference if you wait long enough… “This not clicking will not stand, man.” Good work, Tomato.

Below are some recent ad shots of Anthony, also shot at Portland area skateparks… the shot on the left was used by Maxxis Tires, and the shot on the right was a Levis double page ad recently. They were shot at Tigard and Glenhaven respectively.