I've been following new proposed legislation in Australia that would limit tobacco companies’ design of cigarette packs in an attempt to make tobacco products less appealing. The legislation would force cigarette companies to sell their cigarettes in standardized drab packaging without logos (but with health warnings). The Australian government selected the olive-brown color design based on research that it is one of the least attractive colors; a similar unbranded box has been considered in the UK.

Philip Morris claims that the regulations would violate international trademark and intellectual property law as well as destroying brands that have been costly to build over 40+ years. Ouch.

I'll be interested to see if the plain packaging really does anything to change behaviors (I can see it slowing new uptakes but existing tobacco patrons might not be swayed). Regardless, I do like the idea of the removal of branding as a weapon against marketers who seek to do harm.

You should check out Are Girl Scout Cookies Deliciously Evil?, a strange and interesting homebrew analysis of the famous Girl Scout Cookies fundraiser.

The author notes the following. In 1992, a box of cookies cost $2. In 2011, they cost $4. I quote: "Total inflation from 1992–2011 was 57%, but the price increased 100%. From 2006–2011, annual US inflation was close to 1% over that period and the net inflation was 9.25%; ); there was a 14% price increase. Perhaps the Girl Scout leadership is to blame."

The analysis is interesting, and well worth a read, for at least two reasons:

1. The working hypothesis is that the Girl Scouts are evil.
2. It's an interesting case study in evaluating charities on your own.

Spoiler alert: It looks like the local Girl Scout councils, rather than the national leadership, are probably to blame.

Siegel+Gale's first annual Global Brand Simplicity Index, [ponders] the following question: Does simplicity matter? And the answer is yes.

Our comprehensive survey of more than 6,000 consumers across seven countries in North America, Europe, the Middle East and Asia uncovers the points of complexity and simplicity in people's lives. It also explores the emotional and economic value people place on having a more simplified experience with brands in different industries.

In addition to the qualitative and quantitative information on specific brands and industries around the globe, we used the survey results to develop the first-ever Global Brand Simplicity Index, which generates a rating of each brand on the simplicity/complexity of their interactions and communications relative to their industry peers.

The top 10 brands of the United States Brand Simplicity Index are:

Last week, Starbucks unveiled a new logo. This move, as readers of BlogLESS are aware, is done at a brand's own peril. (Further case in point, GapGate.)

Nevertheless, as Olivier Blanchard notes, "Seemingly undaunted by the prospect of having its own logo redesign firebombed across the Twitternets by masses of disappointed customers and fans, Starbucks moved ahead to mark its 40th birthday with such an exercise..."

The result?

The reaction, predictably, has been almost uniformly negative (and occasionally funny).

Logos "Starbucksified", courtesy of The Brand Builder Blog

Starbucks had to anticipate a negative reaction. But did they make a mistake?

I myself am not so sure. The logo retains the iconic Starbucks mermaid, and so visual continuity with the previous logo. Starbucks is hardly in a position to lose brand recognition at this point. Certainly, the new logo doesn't "pop" off the cup as much as the old logo does, but logos aren't comic books.

This design seems to me to be more of a political move -- a landgrab -- than a visual one. The point of logos, or at least one of their major functions, is to communicate the idea of a brand to viewers as quickly and simply as possible. If Starbucks can do that with a green circle, that, to my mind, is a huge gain for the coffee giant in the cultural iconographic Zeitgeist.

Of course, we probably ought to mourn the loss of a culture where we didn't associate a green circle with the Starbucks brand, but that's hardly the kind of thing we ought to expect Starbucks to care about. It's worth visualizing the iconographic payoff that Starbucks is playing for with this redesign:

The Starbucks logo, unevolved (contrast: Google's logo)

It's a testament to strong branding that you can recognize many of these even with the detail removed-- nothing more than color and proportions.

The top 100 web brands, by COLORLovers.

Compare to AMO/ WIRED's 2003 graphic of the top 100 brands overall. Here, again, blue dominates.

1. Ethical behavior is good for the economy

This paper by David Rea of Victoria University examines the large-scale implications of an idea that we've been kicking around for quite a while.

2. Imagine A Pie Chart Stomping On An Infographic Forever

Source: Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine in Good Medicine Magazine

Careless designers all too readily sacrifice truth for the sake of aesthetics.

Smashing Magazine calls out designers' statistical illiteracy with a Showcase Of Bad Infographics.

3. 7 Ways to Use Psychological Influence With Social Media Content

This article from Social Media Examiner describes 7 psychological principles that can help your content get people's attention.

4. “Daddy, What’s a Brand?”

Last, this Fast Company article has a number of interesting perspectives on the postmodern practice of branding.

Next to the economics of peer-to-peer recommendation, the old paid-media model looks like a scam. You have to ask yourself how an industry employing so many creative thinkers at such high salaries has, on the whole, gotten away with so much crap for so long. Imagine if all that creative problem-solving power was re-channeled?

1. Take Note: New Facebook Privacy Changes

Did you see a new Facebook service agreement the last time you checked your status feed? The EFF warns that users should be aware of the latest changes to Facebook Terms of Service:

Today, Facebook removed its users' ability to control who can see their own interests and personal information. Certain parts of users' profiles, "including your current city, hometown, education and work, and likes and interests" will now be transformed into "connections," meaning that they will be shared publicly. If you don't want these parts of your profile to be made public, your only option is to delete them.

Read on for an explanation of why Facebook is doing this and what users can do about it.

2. Dribble

I'm digging on Dribble lately. It's a new website where designers can show tiny (400 x 300px) snippits of what they're working on. Kind of a visual Twitter.

So far, the work seem to have a high level of quality across the board. Despite the small size of the images, there's big inspirado inside.

3. Planes or Volcano?

Image via Information is Beautiful

Another wonderful info-graphic from Information is Beautiful.

4. What's in a Brand Name?

I get a kick out of design trivia, like this Mental Floss article explaining the brand names of 10 top companies. I thought the story of Asus name was interesting:

Netbook computers are the hottest gadget out there, with around 14 million of the cheap little laptops sold in 2008. One of the big names in netbook production is the Taiwanese computer company, Asus, which gets its name from the winged horse of Greek mythology, Pegasus. But if you took a quick glance at the phone book, “Pegasus” wouldn’t have been too high in the directory of computer companies. So, to increase their visibility in alphabetical lists, they dropped the first three letters of their name. It was an unusual strategy, but apparently it worked.