Incredible! Perfect!

I applaud the Target person who selected CSA for this project. This is what adding value with graphic design is all about. It just simply works. I heard about this the other day and went to Target just to see all the stuff. Amazing. To me Anderson is so good, not because of the retro cliche that I believe mislabels him, but because of the incredible attention to detail with strong impactful imagery.

Also, check out the stuff he is doing with Heidelberg and variable digital printing.pdf

damn its nice. there couldnt be a more perfect project for them.

Many of the graphics were done by Kyle Hames. I'll see if I can get him to comment on the project in here...

but because of the incredible attention to detail

I'll save my rant on CSA's lack of detail in their stock imagery product for another time, though. ;o)

What do we think?

Oh...I forgot to say that I think it's wonderful...especially the iconography.

So nice, I was actually admiring it the other evening when I Was doing my weekly Target shopping - bought some candy corn and treats even!! I love the "wallpaper" background that travels from product to product - helps stabilize the "language" well!! Looks like it was fun to do!

Call me silly, but I never thought they would have hired an outside design company - I mean, it makes sense, but I would have just have assumed, if I had thought about it - that someone did this internally. I know that the "Swell" line as well as many others are designed exclusively for Target. Does anyone know if they are designed internally? (I know Mossimo, Eddie Bauer, etc are not though)

Or am I an idiot - do they "send" everything out? I have never looked into it!

Wicked!

I love it, but if you know me, you know I'm a sucker for excess. I love the way they bought the creepy out in the masks and stuff. I'm green with envy.

and I want one of those black cat bibs.

overall, it reminds me of last year's Halloween hurrah which was courtesy of Sharon Werner and Sarah Nelson, also of Minneapolis.

The wallpapers, the little flourishes, the type sense, and those cute little characters all work pretty well. And just looking at it, you can tell it was shaped by CSA. And i wonder if Target will be actually selling any of the iconic "retro" masks used in the displays/signage (ching $ ching $ for CSA)???

Love it.

But beyond CSA's design style, I love the retro wit of the old-fashioned mask-in-a-box from our childhood.

Target is just so smart.

I love Halloween -- especially dressing up for the office. The more elaborate the costumes, the better.

Sorry -- side story. I once worked in an firm of 15 people, evenly split b/t men and women. For one Halloween, we threw each other's names in a hat, and drew from it. Whoever's name you got, you had to dress, act, and talk like them for the day -- including sitting in their office, going to meetings, everything. Most of the men had to cross-dress, including our ultra-formal suit & tie boss, and me. It was scandalously fun.

From a press release:

Charles S. Anderson Design Company began working two years ago on one of its most extensive projects� - the Target Halloween 2003 campaign.

Asked to create the look of the store's seasonal identity, the design company took inspiration from the campy aesthetic of vacu-form plastic masks that many adults remember from childhood.� The adult party theme of "Friday the 31st" incorporates masks as giant Pop Art in-store displays.

Charles S. Anderson Design Company's package designs, patterns, illustrations, icons, logos, labels, tags, screen graphics, and color palettes have been applied to thousands of Halloween items available at Target Stores nationwide.

Company founder Charles S. Anderson said, "I grew up across the street from a graveyard as a kid, and it became my playground.� Halloween was always a big deal at our house.� Because of this, the design of the Target Halloween campaign was one of the most fascinating and unusual programs we have worked on to date."

Sorry, all, I don't love it. The "Halloween" typeface is kind of nice, and the holding device around "candy corn," etc is cute, but I don't see anything truly special about what they are doing. It seems like just another Halloween promotion to me. Nothing that surprises me or shocks me, no pun intended. And I particularly do not like the use of the Target logo in the signage, and the caramel apple packaging features what looks like terrible photos of a really delicious treat.

Or am I an idiot - do they "send" everything out?

If you work in a design firm (or as a graphic designer) in MN you are bound, at some point, to end up working on something for Target. They do have a large internal group as well. Overall, Target buys a lot of design (of all sorts) which makes them a nice company to have around.

I worked at Target all through college and my last year there I was in charge of all the signing. It was a really fun job. I got to see all the new stuff come in every season. All that signing gets pitched/recycled for the most part, so if you go to your local Target and leave your name and number with the signing person you may luck out and get to take it home for your very own. Sometimes schools ask for it as well and it gets donated so don't be greedy.

> Or am I an idiot - do they "send" everything out?

They also ship stuff all the way to the west coast to firms like Templin Brink.

My overall feeling: I love it but it's a lot of recycled CSA stuff, which bothers me a bit, especially the cut-out masks. I am so sick of those things coming up in every single French Paper promotion, and every other design related thing. To me, it's just the most unoriginal thing, but the rest of the US population hasn't seen it, so, whatever.

I really, really dig the icons. Those are expertly crafted. Fun, scary, glowing, it's all working baby. The store signage: eh. Kind of just thrown up there. I'm sure it looks better in real life. I like some of the packaging but not all of it.

The "Halloween" type treatment, as opposed to Debbie, is my least favorite part. It looks a little bit austere compared to the rest of the package, a nice hand-drawn, custom lettering would have been a nice touch.

>overall, it reminds me of last year's Halloween hurrah which was courtesy of Sharon Werner and Sarah Nelson, also of Minneapolis.

I was going to say the same thing. Even two or three years ago Werner created some really cool characters that were on the TV ads and are very similar to all this look.

I'm not trying to knock so much on CSA. This is a wonderful campaign and I do think it's a great of example of good quality design being delivered to the masses — and that ain't easy.

I love it but it's a lot of recycled CSA stuff, which bothers me a bit, especially the cut-out masks

If they started this project 2 years ago, then that is probably why we saw the mask about 2 years ago on French Paper.

Sorry, all, I don't love it.

That's crazy talk! Kidding! But it is more impressive in person. These images do not do the quality and quantity of work justice. How does a small firm do so much work? Guess those winters are long up there.

Two years?

What are they going to do with all that stuff on November 1?

wow - i thought from the original post that everyone was going to hate this stuff from a designer's perspective that was somehow above me (I guess I just speak and hear only sarcasm!).

I actually do like it, and i do like that Chez Target does pay so attention to package design... I may be nuts, but i really do look at toaster oven boxes and beer cans and think, "Wow, i wish this looked better." Courting the likes of Michael Graves, Todd Oldham, Philip Stark!?! Amazing considering the store's key demographic. I'm waiting for the Frank Gehry camping gear!

And I really do love the type and icons (maybe not the modernist wallpaper too much, but i hate the 1950s) but something that kinda irks me is the the mainstreaming of the imagery. I'm from New Mexico, and Holloween, more specifically Dia de los Muertos is serious business... The iconography is unbelievably beautiful and rich with tradition, and it seems that this design campaign has just kinda subsidized it and made it friendly.

I really don't care very much, but it kinda bugs me in the same way was retro lunchboxes, carebears, VH1's I Love the 80s, $80 trucker hats, Sex Pistols haute couture... et al.

Faux nostalgia is complete BS, particularly for people who mock the original or weren't even alive to experience something the first time around! A lil off topic maybe, but it bugs me.

There is a huge flaw in my argument though.

Usually, this gripe would come in response to a similar campaign by Restoration Hardware or Martha Stewart or some other hoity toity company that sells overpriced, overstylized, campy, faux low-class, crap to spoiled lil brats so their parents can give them a pre-packaged, sterilized version of a real childhood... I HATE that noise...

But it's funny that Target is offering the stylized version of itself. It's like Target is the store of the people but with the elegance to appear as a poseur store offering well-designed pretty duplicates of the store of the people. Good job Target.

I saw the masks in my local Target a few days ago--they're much more striking in person, primarily because they're so damn big + ugly. I was immediately surprised, both by seeing something that's pretty campy, and that Target would go for it. They always seem to do something interesting, but I don't think that style necessarily has mass appeal, even though I think many people will immediately understand it.

We didn't take time to check out the packaging that was linked here, but I definitely give the whole thing a gold star. I'm a sucker for CSA stuff, I don't care how played out it is (even if it's only played to a miniscule percentage of the population. ; )

The way they worked it into the Target site (the one page I looked at anyway) just blows. Yuck.

I love living in the UK, but golly gee I do miss Target. I wish I could see all CSA's Halloween loveliness in person.

At my Target I started noticing the large cartoony icon-type signage around the seasonal section a few weeks, and I thought they were very cool right off the bat (no pun intended). I remember looking at them and saying aloud "those are pretty cool, might be nice to have one for home." In terms of Target's promotions, it seems like a much more intensive project than what they've done in the past....although, I suppose, eveything that Target has done of late has been getting more intense, from the TV commercials to the national implementation of the newer store design to the signing on of certain designers for various lines.

Let me just say also that Target is my favorite store. It's got the K-Mart product lines with a little more self-respect and style than the other large department-type stores (ie, Wal-Mart, which I really hate going to these days). I'm just a sucker for somewhat stylish things without having to drop stylish prices, ya know? For example, if you check out their watches, they've recently been carrying a small line of "industrial style watches" with no brand name on them for 20 bucks apiece, and take my word for it, they're really cool...very retro and hip in they're look...really just cool design. This seems to be the trend for Target: implementing cool style and design without becoming something as obnoxious and class-conscious as Macy's or Eddie Bauer or what-have-you.

But, i digress.

PS.I'm definately going to have to get that grim reaper character stamp with candy. Very bad-ass.

We did some Flash e-vites work for Target using the CSA images. Needless to say, and I'm not trying to bash CSA, their vector artwork is terrible from a technical standpoint. In the images that we received from Target, there were bezier curve points everywhere, and therefore it was extremely difficult to animate these images for Flash.

I think that the CSA look is dated. Every time I see their work it doesn't "wow" me anymore. Once CSA found their look they stuck with it. I haven’t seen any cutting edge work come out of there in the past couple of years (in my opinion).

Despite my complaints Target did a very good job picking their Halloween campaign. I just like to question the big players out there.

>Once CSA found their look they stuck with it.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, after all they've been a big success with that look. CSA is, in my opinion, the most easily recognized firm by other designers. With all of the merchandising (CSA Zippo anyone?) they've basically branded themselves with that image. I give them props for sticking to their guns. Sure, some designers might be tired of seeing their work in annuals year after year, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that they are a smart firm.

Just to clairfy, I'm not complaining to complain. Nor would I ever say everything bad about a great client like Target. I just re-read my post and I really didn't mean to make it sound so harsh.

I have never been to a Target (I'm in Canada), but I find it very interesting that not only have all of you, but many seem to shop there regularly. Am I right in assuming that this is largely to do with marketing on their part? Would you have been caught dead shopping there 10 years ago?

Clearly they've delivered on the goods as well, but it's interesting to me because it seems to be an exclusively American thing, the chic low-budget megastore. None of the big stores up here have ever caught on to the idea of using high design to sell themselves out of the suburban ghetto.

Three Words:

Rubber fucking stamp.

>Am I right in assuming that this is largely to do with marketing on their part? Would you have been caught dead shopping there 10 years ago?

Such an interesting question. Target was owned by a company called Dayton-Hudson. Yes, that Dayton-Hudson--the company that owns Dayton's and...gasp...Marshall Field's. Target was just one of their many department stores. About 10 years ago, they started to implement a more design-oriented mentality into Target, and the stock responded favorably. Very favorably. It split approximately 4 times in the past 6 years (read: you would've doubled your money if you owned the stock in that timeframe), and despite the economic downturn, the stock has weathered quite well on Wall Street. Given the continued success of the Target brand, Dayton-Hudson decided to change the name of the parent company to...you guessed it...Target. It certainly is a great case study to see how a commitment to overall design excellence can indeed impact a company's bottom line and reward investors.

I may not be wild about this, but--

I'll bet ya that it sells, and you know what? That's pretty important. Target's customers will eat this up and they might even grab some new ones. So...yeah, the design has been done SO many times for SO many different types of clients, but it's probably going to work here. I think that's fine. Like it or don't like it, the aesthetics aren't shit and that's cool.

their vector artwork is terrible from a technical standpoint

FYI, many of their stock icons for purchase are actually BMPs. We learned that the hard way. :( Realize that a lot of the product work is intern-based, so you kind of get what you pay for in that sense (not to bash interns, of course...we've all been there...)

I think that the CSA look is dated.

I think that's kind of the point, isn't it? Don't firms like CSA get hired specifically for their style? I think if you can generate such an identifiable style and sell yourself based on that, why not?

Am I right in assuming that this is largely to do with marketing on their part?

Depends on how you define 'marketing'. The reason *I* shop there is that their product lines tend to be a bit more...well...'designy'. A *lot* of what they sell are in-house brands designed by Target themselves. Add to that identifiable product lines like Graves, Starck and such, they've defined themselves as being a fairly unique member of the rather generic department store world. There's not a whole lot to distinguish Target from Kmart (other than Martha), but Target tends to really stand out not only through it's marketing, but through the actual products sitting on its shelves.

>Would you have been caught dead shopping there 10 years ago?

10 years ago Chicagoland Target was pretty new to most people. (I think I remember the first Chicago area store about 1990-91?) I grew up with Target in Wisconsin and really don't remember it being too different from KMart. Seeing the Target today versus the one I grew up with there is a big difference in their marketing strategy, espacially with the exclusive lines.

I'm not sure if Dayton/Hudson has owned Target forever or what but them buying it (if that's the case) might have something to do with the shift.

There's not a whole lot to distinguish Target from Kmart

Aw crap. Meant to say Wal-Mart from Kmart. Duh.

I knew someone here would know about the ownership thing, thanks Debbie.

Depends on how you define 'marketing'.

I think I should have said "design" instead of "marketing". Obviously all companies market, but Target (and K-mart) are relatively unique in really using design as a marketing lever, both in their advertising and the products they offer, and I guess it's really working (thanks, Debbie).

Someone mentioned earlier, not being sure if this Halloween stuff would fly with Target's demographic, but that's the really amazing thing about Target is that they have transceneded their original demographic, but presumably without losing that base. The point is you can use edgy, unusual "high design" to sell to the masses. This is interesting to me because it flies in the face of the perceived notion that "that's too crazy for suburban moms" or "that's too fancy for Joe working guy."

he point is you can use edgy, unusual "high design" to sell to the masses.

see also: IKEA

I think that the CSA look is dated. Every time I see their work it doesn't "wow" me anymore. Once CSA found their look they stuck with it.

I beg to differ. I cannot think of a firm, renowned for having a style (although I disagree that he/they do) that has reinvented themselves more or remained as current. If you look at his early work post-Duffy...compare it today, and see all the ebbs and flows, you'd change your mind. There are threads, that would be impossible to avoid. But the only thing that has 'stayed the same' is his eye for talent (Joel Templin, Paul Howalt among many more who cut their teeth at CSA only to move on) and his eye for color and design.

The point is you can use edgy, unusual "high design" to sell to the masses. This is interesting to me because it flies in the face of the perceived notion that "that's too crazy for suburban moms" or "that's too fancy for Joe working guy."

I have not seen the CSA product line in person, but I have an issue with what Target (pronounced "tar-jzay" in our house) has done to erode the perception of what design is.

Yes Ms. Millman, you are correct. I would not have even set foot in one of their stores without the advertising. But once I did, I was severely disappointed. It is all cheaply made crap -- every one of the design stars' lines. Michael Graves products are merely cheap components in Michael Graves "drag"; the Stark stuff is crappy plastic, the Todd Oldham line was common products with striped decoration, and the Issac Mizrahi line features cheaply made house coats of the type granny used to wear.

Each one probably had a royalty agreement, got massive publicity and in my consideration; exchanged their ethics as designers for filthy lucre.

Every time Target promotes a line of cheap (not expensive) designer goods, they further reinforce the idea that design is merely decoration. Yes, they have fabulous advertising. Yes, they seem to be expert at conveying their brand. But let me propose this to you all:

Branding is much, much more than a consistant visual message. Branding is the divine focus that makes the whole consumer experience a positive one. That means you don't package shit nicely and think that you're done.

Target has the branding thing backwards. You have to start with quality products and good customer service first -- then you can fuss over the logo. And that is a similar misconception that I constantly read in this forum.

Who gives a rat's ass how good the Walgreens logo is? The people behind the counter are generally surly and slow. The Lee jeans logo? Who cares? I want to know how they wear.

Until we start questioning our involvement in the whole process, then we have no business calling ourselves branders or designers. If you want to make a lot of money, fine. But once you compromise the divine process of design, then you are nothing more than a decorator.

That said, I now have to briefly recant one thing. The Michael Graves line did have one good product set: the gardening tools. They are sturdy, nicely formed, and are comfortable to hold. Obviously an oversight.

Story:

I was baby-sitting a friends seven year old about two weeks ago. So, we’re walking around town and decide to go into Target to get some candy. I usually stop by Target once a week, and I enjoy seeing the marketing change out from time to time. But that afternoon I wasn’t prepared for the giant masks and abundance of cute yet creepy promotional materials that overcame my vision.

Either was the seven year old. She began to hide behind me and follow clutching onto my pants. I noticed, but I had no idea what was wrong until one of the Target workers walked by carrying Frankenstien. He caught her staring at the thing and thrust it out while saying “boo.”

The poor girl began to ball! Not being a parent myself I just stood in shock. Over the next few minuets I tried in vain to calm her down, but finally I gave up and left the store. There’s nothing like watching a kid balling her eyes out while trying to hide from stuff that's hanging from the ceiling.

Every time I go in there now I love watching the small children that keep looking up with worried looks on their faces.... And it’s not limited to kids, my fiancé gets uneasy in there now too. Me, I love it.

Each one probably had a royalty agreement, got massive publicity and in my consideration; exchanged their ethics as designers for filthy lucre.

Interesting that you should say that, Mr. Kingsley. I was at a conference recently and was in a group talking to the lovely Paola Antonelli (design curator of MoMA) and we were chatting about the Target personality-branded products. Everyone was oohing and ahhing about them--except Paola. I believe she had the same opinion as you. It was interesting to hear the other side of the design equation--namely, how well the product holds up to the "design promise."

I guess we can't forget that these personality-branded products are essentially private label brands for Target. And ultimately Target is interested in making money. If they are not charging the consumer a premium and they are paying high royalty fees, (and they are, Michael Graves admitted to making a fortune on his stuff--way, way more than on his teapot for Alessi--how sad) they have to make their margin someway.

It is too bad that there seems to be a disconnect between the style and the substance of these products. But I am really ignorant in this department, I have shopped at Target all but once. There isn't one in NYC (except for the Isaac Mizrahi boutique, and as an collector of vintage Isaac fare, I can not bring myself to go in there) The one time I was there I bought some Michael Graves spatulas. They were pretty, but ultimately I have found them to be a bit heavy and bulky. But I also have small hands, so it could be me. Anyone else finding a disconnect between the style and the substance of the products?

It is all cheaply made crap

It's cheap, sure. Not high end craftsmanship, either, but remember that they are a department store.

Each one probably had a royalty agreement, got massive publicity and in my consideration; exchanged their ethics as designers for filthy lucre.

You mean they got paid to design mass-market consumer goods? Gasp! Shock! Horror!

For consumer goods, I think the stuff Target produces is fine quality-wise. I wouldn't call it great heirloom stuff, but I don't know if I'd call it shit, either...especially when compared to shit sold at the x-marts of the world.

I completely agree with your POV that decoration, alone, is not design. But I, personally, see more than decoration in a lot of their products.

When I saw the giant masks hanging all over the store, I said to my wife, "When I was a kid, I'd have avoided Target all month once I saw those things." They're creepy.

good christ.

you lot really need habitat over there.

maybe i could do the deal, make my million(s).

it might also settle what you americans seem to think is some kind of 'debate'.

or at least give you a chance to catch up.

You mean they got paid to design mass-market consumer goods? Gasp! Shock! Horror!

For consumer goods, I think the stuff Target produces is fine quality-wise. I wouldn't call it great heirloom stuff, but I don't know if I'd call it shit, either...especially when compared to shit sold at the x-marts of the world.

Yes. I do admit to posessing a religious ferver to my overly judgemental attitutes. Like Al Goldstein says "I yell because I care".

My dear Ms. Millman, may I propose this question: who needs that stuff? A Sunbeam toaster works just as well as a Michael Graves� toaster. The Phillipe Stark desk set was a couple plastic containers on a tray -- put more than a few pencils in one of the containers and it would tip over. An empty Campbells Soup can would work just as well, have a pop art aura, and cost less.

My argument lies especially with Mr. Graves and Mr. Stark. I've had the pleasure to see both of them speak and each one filled me with the excitement of the possibility of design, the joy of discovery and the nobility of designing for the end user. All of which was greatly diminished in their lines for Target.

After watching MTV's House of Style� and seeing how Todd Oldham glued a bunch of stuff to a lamp and called it design -- I never really had much hope he would reinvent anything for Target: striped pillows, striped folders, striped school supplies, etc.

But (and this is a big "but") when Target advertised the products as Design by Designers -- that is when the products turned it to shit. At least for me, that is.

As I've said, my relationship to Design borders on the religious. The process of discovery, the daily struggle, the euphoria of the great idea requires a great commitment to one's self and society. I don't expect myself or other designers to hit the mark with every job, but you have to at least try. Given the glory of Mr. Graves and Mr. Stark's careers, I was truly disappointed.

No. There is nothing wrong with designing mass-market consumer goods. Hoping the "aura" of designer goods can be transfered to consumer goods by hiring a few famous designers shows a disregard for the customer.

On the other hand, KMart's association with Martha Stewart seemed to hit the mark better. I got a sense that more attention was paid to the product AND the packaging. Heck, we even have a few items in our house -- and we're the least likely to be of the Cult of Martha.

One goes to Target for bulk toilet paper, Swiffer� pads and the like. Given the demands of price points and margins, I don't expect them to create amazingly designed goods. For that to happen would require a top-down re-evaluation of their whole business structure and a hell of a lot of work from all departments.

I just have to say that I understand what you are saying (M. Kingsley) about target being backwards in a way - but I do not think that all of their product is low end - low quality. I buy a lot of my household things, from furniture to bedding to kitchenwawre there. While i understand that i=t isnt the top of the line product, I also do not know anywhere else you can buy a complete - real wood - desk and bookshelves without spending a fortune. I love the stuff I buy there. It is a pottery barn/crate and barrel look at half the price. I think I do pretty well when all of my friends live by the mercy of partical board and pressed-fake wood. And (I think) it looks great!

But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

We pronounce it "tar-jzay" as well - and so does Oprah!!

oops. forgive me. I misread Mr. Darrel's comment as coming from Ms. Millman.

Ms. Millman - from your picture, you have wonderful taste in eyewear. I bet they didn't come from Target. ;)

I just have to say that I understand what you are saying (M. Kingsley) about target being backwards in a way - but I do not think that all of their product is low end - low quality. I buy a lot of my household things, from furniture to bedding to kitchenwawre there. While i understand that i=t isnt the top of the line product, I also do not know anywhere else you can buy a complete - real wood - desk and bookshelves without spending a fortune. I love the stuff I buy there. It is a pottery barn/crate and barrel look at half the price. I think I do pretty well when all of my friends live by the mercy of partical board and pressed-fake wood. And (I think) it looks great!

Ms. Sarah B. -- I have less of a problem with those products, because there's a greater honesty. No patina of the Great (usually White) Designer.

because there's a greater honesty

I see what you are saying now. And, yes, I agree.

I personally found the Stark products to be arrogant. I found them unique, and stylish, but ultimately, as you say in so many words, 'over marketed' compared to what they really were.

And wow...we've taken a bit of a tangent on this whole thread, haven't we?

I really like the backgrounds. The typeface...not so much! Colors and icons are great! The packaging as a whole draws you to it, and that's the most important thing about package design. It doesn't look "cheap" even if it is, so it makes the consumer think they're getting more for their money.

I say bravo!

Rock on, Kingsley.

I think "Michael B." quoted some other guy a couple weeks ago who said "Graphic designers are exotic menials." While I believe that frequently to be true, and I believe there has to be significant concern over the whole experience, for the sake of sanity I want to reiterate that this attitude, too, can be taken too far, a la Terry Irwin and the whole "designers can do anything!" jabber.

Okay, so Target's stuff might be cheaply produced and of low quality, but one of my biggest problems with design is that its so fucking elitist. I'd much rather that people have access to cool looking things instead of those items being reserved for those who have a lot of disposable income.

Of course, what I think Kingsley is saying, is that Target should produce this cool stuff but improve the quality of it, too. And I can get behind that.

Another view from John Nye on the Library of Economics And Liberty website. According to him, all this discussion is unresolvable.

Maybe so. At least we can light a single candle, rather than curse the darkness.

And Mr. Bradley, I would like to suggest that instead of "cool stuff" it would be nice for the Targets of the world to make good, useful, long lasting stuff with low impact on the environment. I can dream, can't I?

I would like to suggest that instead of "cool stuff" it would be nice for the Targets of the world to make good, useful, long lasting stuff with low impact on the environment. I can dream, can't I?

Others that are proposing the same ideals—the book Cradle to Cradle comes to mind by William McDonough & Michael Braungart. There's a good review of it at slashdot. Another link of interest could be MBDC.

OK, hang on a second here. Once again, I'm assuming a bunch of thngs, having never been to Target, but here in Canada, our equivalent would be, I guess Zellers. At Zellers they market low end crap to people with a smaller income than myself, and they do it with no style, grace, wit, humour, or, quite frankly intelligence, whatsoever. I think they do it partly because they assume that their target market wouldn't understand that kind of marketing, or it wouldn't appeal to them somehow.

All I'm saying is that it appears to me that Target has proven them wrong. And quite frankly I'm pleased that someone thinks that those with less income are worth a little splash in design and advertising. Given a choice between sticking a blue and yellow "special deal!" starburst on the cheap schlock, or giving it some thought, a twist, and a little energy, I'd take the latter.

There will always be badly made, inexpensive stuff, and the fact is that without it many people wil just be denied certain things. Those people are probably not you and me, but if you can afford an Alessi teapot, you shouldn't go looking in Target thinking you can get the same thing for less. That stuff's not for you, it's for people who have a choice between that and some ugly piece of shit that the bottom will fall off of the 2nd time they use it.

Sure, in an ideal world all products would be well-made, ergonomic, useful and inexpensive, but ...

I'm not saying that the prettification of a product is somehow the epitome of good design, but I am saying that within the constraints of cheap production for a certain market less fortunate than ourselves, it's good that they can get purple spatulas instead of white ones or stripes on their sheets in attractive colours rather than yellow floral patterns. Why not? Who does it hurt?

Back to the topic at hand: I reiterate that I very much like the Halloween stuff, but I like it more because from my perspective it's unusual in that it's targeted to a market that up here in Canada is almost completely abandoned by design. You just would never see that in a Zellers, and more's the pity.

marian wrote:

I'm not saying that the prettification of a product is somehow the epitome of good design, but I am saying that within the constraints of cheap production for a certain market less fortunate than ourselves, it's good that they can get purple spatulas instead of white ones or stripes on their sheets in attractive colours rather than yellow floral patterns. Why not? Who does it hurt?

It hurts us. It reduces designers to decorators. It makes the kind of decisions that designers make the point of the product -- not whether it's a useful spatula, if it's comfortable, if handicapped people can use it, etc.

It hurts consumers. It gives then non-decisions. The question is not "which one does the job better" but "what color do you want?"

*please forgive my gross generalizations about consumers -- I'm trying to make a point about design ethics.*

Back to the topic at hand: I reiterate that I very much like the Halloween stuff, but I like it more because from my perspective it's unusual in that it's targeted to a market that up here in Canada is almost completely abandoned by design. You just would never see that in a Zellers, and more's the pity.

From what I see from the links supplied by Armin's intoduction, many of the products are nothing really different from stuff we've seen before. CSA has packaged candy (they put cute plastic figures on the caps), plastic drink cups (orange! in a special poly bag!) and masks (the kind parents were warned against when I was a teenager -- reduces visability).

So it looks like CSA were hired to decorate a bunch of Halloween stufff.

I, like many others here, am in awe of Mr. Anderson's form making. Their mastery of composition and their humor are inspirational. But let's not forget that all the above compliments are as shallow as the labels. We like the decorations on the poly bags.

We. Like. The. Decorations. On. The. Poly. Bags.

And we wonder why we're "exotic menials"?

Mr. Kingsley--

I've long believed that good design, good ideas, whatever you want to call them, essentially take a familiar notion and get us to think about it--that of course includes thinking about something differently, or in a new way, or for the first time. There's no sense in limiting them to that, I suppose, because good design and good ideas should also produce a desired outcome as well. They can be quite utilitarian, there should be a function and perhaps it ought to be explosive.

For Target, a large national corporation, the function is to increase revenues and earnings--typically, low-cost items or services work best when there's quick and constant turn-around. You said in another thread something that I fiercely believe, that "your best ideas serve others." For Target, the best "ideas" (I hesitate to call CSA's work conceptual, and even if it is, its clearly not terribly fresh, its more like a good microwave that re-heats well), move product from shelf to shopping cart. In this they have succeeded in the past and they figured, quite rightly probably, that CSA's work would do the same.

Fundamentally, I agree--this is good design, but its only half-way there. It functions well for the business, but only somewhat effectively for the individuals who purchase this stuff. Its instant gratification, soon to be replaced with another flavor of instant gratification.

Today the LA Weekly ran an article about Walmart [ here ] that has huge implications about the class and/or culture of the store... kind of related.

Guess what.

Graphic design is not very important. It's the least important form of design. And design is a lot less important than a whole host of other types of work: government, education, law enforcement, agriculture, medicine, garbage collection.

Yeah, we can improve all those things. But it is only because we live in countries that can afford to pay us to improve them. If things go badly, we are the disposable extras.

My point is that if CSA doing fun stuff for Target makes you feel cheap and assaults your "religion" maybe you should get a real religion and stop taking design so seriously.

I do graphic design because it is Fun to make things look pretty and work better and sell better. And it has been fun ever since I dropped the torured creative crap and stopped wishing people would give me proper Designer Respect and focused on doing good work, even though it's Not Actually Important. But I've got a real religion, so that could just be me.

Rock on, CSA!

It's the least important form of design.

Oh, c'mon...we have to be at least tied with fashion designers for least important...right?

But I've got a real religion, so that could just be me.

How is your religion any more 'real' than anyone else's? (Not to belittle your point...I agree with you...)

I just have one request, feel free to ignore it, this whole Mr and Ms thing is a bit weird and getting out of hand, could we leave the prefixes out? Suffixes, now that would be cool.

Sincerely

Armin Vit Sr.

Mr. Vit, Sr.--

Oh come now dear sir, some formality never hurt anyone!

Mr. UK--

Yeah, fun rocks. Fun sells. I'm still bloody sick of CSA's style--David Carson has more variety. But whatever...its fun, it'll sell, that's the point.

I'm sorry M Kingsley, but I consider your argument to be insane. Essentially you're saying that unless we are requested/allowed/paid to create a truly better world by improving products significantly, what we do is not design and if we call it design we are contributing to the denigration of our own profession. If we were all to follow this, 99% of us would have to stop working right now.

As graphic designers a lot of our work is superficial, and most of our clients are not the best in their field or do not have the best product or service. We don't improve the flavour of the tea, we make a nice tin for it; we don't invent disposable shrinkwrap for beds, we put a pattern on the sheet and a label on the package; we don't invent a new, healthy halloween candy, we make a package for candy korn. Ususally we examine the product or service to determine where its strengths or true superiority lies and work with the client to promote that.

As for the architects and industrial designers famously hired to create new products I would agree that their focus should be on creating a kettle that won't burn your hand when you pour, rather than one with a bird whistle on top, provided they can do it within the budget of the client. If the kettle can be improved and sold to the Target shopper at the same price as the unimproved one, then that's a good thing, but if the improvement of the kettle costs so much in design, research and manufacturing that it must necessarily cost a lot more to be profitable, then that just contributes to the gentrification of the store. Many stores with once-humble beginnings can and do start selling better and more expensive items, but does that mean that their original market of poor people get better items in their homes? It does not.

Anyway, having never been there, I really can't comment on the quality of Target's products with any authority. I would suspect that the products do not belong in MoMA, but that they do belong in Target.

But really, back to CSA and Halloween. My original point was, it may look familiar to us, but I guarantee the look is not familiar to the average store clerk, factory worker or bus driver, and I'm impressed that Target thinks their customers will respond to something other than a yellow starburst.

Honey, that certainly ain't the first time I've been called "insane". Join the club and thanks for the compliment.

To paraphrase Tibor Kalman, there are so many capable designers that what was once considered good is now merely mediocre. Neville Brody once commented that since the average secretary could now produce a perfectly fine brochure, his professional practice was switching to the creation of typographic paintings. You gotta love him, because THAT's crazy talk.

I disagree that Graphic Design may be considered the least important form. We are part of the creation of Culture. Practicing as a graphic designer because it's fun to make to make things look pretty and work and sell better (to paraphrase an earlier post) is perfectly fine. Personally, I'm happier with the the self-torture -- it's the ex-catholic in me and the "If I'm going to spend my life doing this..." equation. But if we are to examine a design project, just saying how much you like or dislike the shapes isn't much of a critique.

There's a notion in Roland Barthes' work of the "punctum" -- the small point in a text where criticism (or the deconstructive process) begins. If we were discussing CSA's brilliant work for the Turner networks, I wouldn't have been able to begin any criticism -- it's that impressive. In this case, the association with Target and their (mis)use of designers' reputations is my point of entry.

With apologies to Jean-Luc Godard, I'm seeing the world in a coffee cup.

As I said in a previous post, this discussion is unresolvable. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Oh, and Armin? I use Mr. and Ms. as a result of 20 years of reading the NYTimes. You should see my written correspondance! Sorry to harsh your mellow. Kind regards, M.

Oh, c'mon...we have to be at least tied with fashion designers for least important...right?

Darrel,

clothing to cover our naked bodies is more important than the bag the clothing comes in, so it follows that the people who make the clothes look pretty are more important than the people who make the bags look pretty.

How is your religion any more 'real' than anyone else's?

I'll tell you why my religion is more real than EVERYONE'S. It's more real because--oops wrong forum.

Mr. UK--

Mr Gutting, if only. But I think the actual British people I live & work with might take issue with that title being given to a septic. (as in Septic Tank which rhymes with Yank. Gotta love Cockneys.)

Finally, If I wasn't as superficial as the stuff I design, I would have said nearly exactly what you said, Marian. Well stated.

> Honey

Ok, let's go back to Mr and Ms.

Oooh! I was just about to say, shouldn't that be "Ms. Honey"?

Anyway, agree to disagree we shall, M, unless you're coming to AIGA, in which case perhaps we could duke it out in person? Your boxing gloves will save your hands and carry quite a whollop, mine will cost less than yours, but leave a prettier impression on your face. Just kidding- right?!

i'd seen the halloween displays before reading this thread, but after reading it i decided to take a trip to target just to see if i'd missed anything. nope. its a halloween promotion and the concept is...halloween masks! But wait, if you do look a little closer you see that they're RETRO halloween masks. We know this from the color pallette and the clunky use of trade gothic (or whatever it is).

And this is what bugs me about CSA. I dont really dislike their work as much as i dislike the whole idea that they've instilled in designers that "retro equals hip design". If they'd used a more contemporary look, would it have been less effective? Of course not. "Retro" is an easy way out. The illustrations of the masks are maybe a cut above your typical halloween promotional stuff, but thats all. The "Famous Monsters of Filmland" style lettering has been knocked off a million times (Art Chantry has done it way better).

On the other hand, unlike Dia de los Muertos, Halloween IS a fun, shlocky holiday, so I dont think there was anything inappropriate about the promotion. I just dont think its worthy of any awards.

M Kingsley,

A great argument on your behalf especially with the use of examples from Tibor Kalman and Neville Brody. And I certainly appreciate your obvious devotion to our ever-changing field with respect to your mention of our need, as designers to get involved in the entire process - I couldn't agree with you more. And this IS happening - Target is doing it, but it will take time for it to happen in all facets of the company - the introduction of the Method Cleaning Products line is a perfect example. But, more importantly I hope that you to see what Target has done for our profession.

It is companies like Target that sell products to the masses at a modest price that are not the default, that have some style to them - these may not be the best products when compared to Williams Sonoma. But, "design" is being introduced to the public and the public is responding by purchasing products from Target and shopping Target rather than stores that simply shelf products.

Here is my point: other companies are seeing the importance of design, and branding, they see what a difference it can make in the sale of their products and are hiring companies to help them with their strategy and their design. If Target wants to stay on top they will have to continue to improve their products, to improve their overall brand, and continue to drive the market and position themselves as a company that raises the bar. Apple has been doing this - they've been working at their branding, their advertising = more and more people are purchasing Apple products, other companies are trying to keep up with the Jones's and hiring design studios and branding firms to improve their companies products, services, and public perception.

Rick Landers srites:

other companies are seeing the importance of design, and branding, they see what a difference it can make in the sale of their products and are hiring companies to help them with their strategy and their design. If Target wants to stay on top they will have to continue to improve their products, to improve their overall brand, and continue to drive the market and position themselves as a company that raises the bar.

From your mouth to God's ear, my friend.

Marian wrote:

agree to disagree we shall, M, unless you're coming to AIGA, in which case perhaps we could duke it out in person?

Alas, I will not be attending. I live in New York and find that most of the cultural figures I want to hear speak eventually end up coming here. But please accept my standing invitation to lunch the next time you're in the City.

But please accept my standing invitation to lunch the next time you're in the City.

I am collecting invitations to lunch in NY (NY designers take note), so my answer is a most humble and exuberant YES.

As far as Target goes, I love what they're doing. Target is not only a department store, theyre a DISCOUNT department store. These types of stores sell products that are generally inexpensive and not always of the highest quality. They should be always be decent quality, however, and I've found Target's products to be pretty good. In fact, one of my favorite shirts is a Massimo dress shirt that I bought there for $19. I also have some of the drinking cups that were out over the summer. When my wife saw the Steven Sprouse 4th of July stuff a year or so ago, she bought almost all of it, including a beach towel, paper plates, etc.

And dont forget that the product designer isnt the engineer of the product. With product design, often the designer is there only to create the cosmetic look of the product within a certain budget, unlike an architect who is involved with all aspects of creating a building.

The consumers of all levels of products deserve great design — and Target was almost visionary to realize that the majority of people would respond to good design. To me, that's very inspiring.

Armin. Armin. Armin.

You jumped on the press release for CSA?

Honey, por favor!

When it popped into my inbox, i instantly asked my friend Mr Howalt what he thought.

(he was the first CSA employee and stayed for 5 years). Cutting to the chase, its not bad work. But, if we're honest about a critique of the vernacular language he helped foster, we now have to look at Werner and Haley. True?

Moving on, Target does a thorough job and has nice employees. You have to squint but much of the stuff - at least in the toys section- was designed by yours truly.

Mark, yes- you are insane (me too). But not as insane as your client at Atlantic- he belongs in the kids section.. with a passifier!

Marian Wrote:

I would suspect that the products do not belong in MoMA, but that they do belong in Target

I know of at leat one item that is in both - the Bic Pen - I bet there are others. (now there's a fun contest)

Marian, I'll pick you up a black cat bib and bring it to Vancouver - I'm going to AIGA and would love to meet you (I'm also a sucker for patterns - and love your work)

Woohoo! First an invitation to lunch and now a bib. Guess what I'll be wearing to lunch in NY?

Felix. Felix. Felix.

Um... yes... yes I did jump on the CSA press release. That's what they are for, right?

So what did Mr. Howalt say? I would assume he could shed a lot of light on the issue (other than it's not bad work) if he was the person you contacted instantly.

looks like more of the same.

nancy mazzei wrote:

looks like more of the same.

Actually, as a participant in this particular discussion I beg to differ. I personally have tried to address the CSA Halloween campaign's role in design culture as a representation of the pitfalls of Design's success (for lack of a better word).

When evaluating an aesthetic object, I try to follow Laura Chapman's four criteria:

1. Representational accuracy

2. Formal restraint

3. Expressiveness and originality

4. Social utility

In this discussion I was attempting to present my thoughts on the social message of hiring well-known designers and using their name recognition as a marketing tool.

My interpretation is that the dog pile you received concerned various opinions towards the graphic expressiveness of your VH1 logo. Kind of like battles over brushwork in abstract painting.

In retrospect, there is a regrettable degree of unfairness in that process. To "identify" is to settle on a goal of what the object (in this case, VH1) is going to "be". Corporate identity is a cultural process. In reidentifying themselves and their programming, VH1 made a jarring shift which may have caused the animosity you felt.

Please consider: that which was an artistic decision in your mind is transformed into an aesthetic and ethic effect when sent into the world. And those evaluations are based on an agreed-upon norm. I think the reason people are more welcome to the CSA work is due to its familiarity. Their use of a vernacular graphic language is generally non-confrontational; with the Halloween packaging being a good example.

There are qualities to the VH1 logo which fly in the face of people's aesthetic comfort (me included). Some of your considerations were contrary to what others' artistic decisions would have been and placed their criteria in crisis.

On a sidenote, I have to applaud you for appearing in this forum. It took courage to state your position when many were against you. Stay strong in the thought that when man gave up a moral existance for an aesthetic one, he became simulacra.

p.s.

The same can be said for corporations.

I'm glad to see the discussion of the Target Halloween campaign.

Some like it, some don't, everyone is welcome to their opinion.

To clear up a few misconceptions.

1) The direction in the store was one of three presented. If you are not fond of what is up, I am fairly sure that you would like one of the other directions.

2) The directions presented were so diverse that you would not even think they came from the same office.

3) Of the three directions presented the final decision fell in the hands of Eric Erickson, Minda Gralnek, Michael Francis, and ultimately Bob Ulrich the CEO of Target.

4) The chosen direction felt "right" for many reasons. One of those reasons being that to some extent people relate well to things they have experienced in their past - cheap Halloween masks. The twist on that is they are truly treated as Pop Art. Another reason is that is was a departure form previous directions. Sharon Werner did an amazing job with the 2001 season.

5) We are hearing back from Target that early indications and internal buzz indicate that this season has had the best reception from the marketplace and is on track to be the best selling Halloween season. Again to give Sharon the credit she is due, no one really felt much like shopping for a holiday party after 9/11/01.

6) The team at Target was great to work with. Eric Erickson, Brad Hartmann and Ron Anderson truly embraced this campaign and made it happen.

7) The icon characters were added to the direction to address the need to keep this an approachable holiday, that smaller children could also relate to.

8) We continue to push the direction the CSA Design Company is going and no one is is more aware of the need of constant evolution than our staff. Currently the design staff consists of Charles S. Anderson, Todd Piper-Hauswirth, Erik Johnson,Kyle Hames, photographer Aaron Dimmel and our newest additions Sheraton Green and Jovaney Hollingsworth, who started as interns.

9) In the quest for this evolution we have somehow developed a staff that is void of attitude and politics. Somehow ideas are free flowing, and I feel that is the reason things seem to "hang together".

10) Paul Howalt was actually the 5th CSA employee, and during his time with us, he too had an equal voice in "what it should look like".

11) One of the biggest problems Target is having with the 2003 Halloween season are the calls and requests to get the big Vacu-Form masks after Oct. 31st. In our opinion that is a good problem to have - something must be working.

Good stuff Todd. Thanks.

I walked into target a few weeks ago and looked up and immediately started plotting how I was going to get one of those masks past the security cameras.

I'm in love.

> plotting how I was going to get one of those masks past the security cameras.

Here's a tip Kia -- store decorations are usually removed the following morning after a holiday. Try going to Target first thing Saturday after Halloween -- you might score a free mask as they're taking it down. Save it for the following year.

I scammed a huge Halloween Simpsons display that way once. Goes up in our front lawn every year.

"...we have somehow developed a staff that is void of attitude and politics"

this may be so, mark- no one accusing you as such. however, sending out press releases to

your competotors (me, howalt, etc) take a fair amount of testicular fortitude! cheers!

ps. pls tell erik to give he can stay with us should he come in for the AI party next month.

Oh Crap, How'd I get dragged into this...

These blogs are always so misinterpreted...

Ahh, leave it to Felix the Kat to keep the water movin in everybody's stream - LOL! You're the best, man! Keep it up!

I enjoy the nod to my 2 and a half year stint w/ CSA, What a dream-job! - Too bad my wife hated the 75 degrees below zero for 10 months out of the year - I loved working there. Although, Chuck probably would have fired me eventually cuz it took me so long to get to Mech phase on everything.

Funny thing on the Target dealio, Mike Calkins (www.BCgraphicDesign.com) and a handful of other designers have recently called me convinced that I did that Target Hallowe'en stuff... Weird, I don't see the stylistic tie-in: maybe on the cool little character icons. Looks more like Molly Zakrajsek, tho, to me. (www.MollyZ.biz) she did some of Target's Kids bike stuff.. she's a great talent and even a better person.

Oh, Erik... dude, what happened to your website? - it went missing! - Felix, Von Glitschka and I thank you for the Root beer and Junk food you sent us at the Illustrators conference! - We all downed it whilst mourning the death of the digital illustration 'medium' - keep painting!.

Two thumbs way up to CSA for the Hallowe'en displays, and a 'grin & Chuck-le' for the press release about it... True to form... You've GOTTA be an aggressive self-promoter in this industry to keep the cashflow rollin... Even WITH the AMAZING talents over there! Great work often scares big clients, right?.. so you gotta generate the 'Buzz' on the street... good Idea.

Well, Think I'll sign off, i have a bunch of lo-budget flash programming to do... Arrrgghh!

The current issue of Newsweek probably deserves its own thread, but there is an article on Target and its use of design in their offerings. The article focuses on Isaac Mizrahi's new clothing line, as well as Graves' products. It also highlights the failure of the Starck line.

I went there this weekend 10/17/03 and checked out all the stuff it was really nice. I loved the signage used to display all the products. I bet Target sold more Halloween stuff this year than ever before. Because when I got there everything was almost gone!! Good Job Chuck and the rest of the team. So where can I get some of the signage for my studio?

Maria

Just came across a site that used the "Boo Buddys" and created icons for your desktop...

but saying more of the same I didn’t mean that as a bad thing, CSA has a Style..kind of repetitive, I like it , it’s beautiful honestly, but it would have been great to see someone like Edward Gory do it someone less expected who might bring some storytelling aspect to the project..just a thought

All I can say is.....

wow.

THAT IS THE MOST SPECTACULAR HALLOWEEN DISPLAY EVER!

simply brilliant.

Heck Halloween is coming around again I wonder if this years display will be just as great.

Target is amazing with its displays for the seasons.Beats out other stores seasonal displays.

Compliments to the people Charles S. Anderson good work.

Branding is much, much more than a consistant visual message. Branding is the divine focus that makes the whole consumer experience a positive one. That means you don't package shit nicely and think that you're done.

Target has the branding thing backwards. You have to start with quality products and good customer service first -- then you can fuss over the logo. And that is a similar misconception that I constantly read in this forum.

Who gives a rat's ass how good the Walgreens logo is? The people behind the counter are generally surly and slow. The Lee jeans logo? Who cares? I want to know how they wear.

Until we start questioning our involvement in the whole process, then we have no business calling ourselves branders or designers. If you want to make a lot of money, fine. But once you compromise the divine process of design, then you are nothing more than a decorator.

Sigh I believe two local chains had good customer service and quality products....

Caldor:

and

Ames

I and my family can never recall any bad expieriences with Caldor or Ames.

I know what you're going to say next "well why don't you shop at those stores?"

Problem is both chains are out of business from the tough competition of bigger stores such as Walmart,possibly Kmart,Kohl's,and *gulp* Target,oh well.

Just before I finish this posting I want to show you this picture.

Its evidence that Caldor cared about its employees also.Do you know any existing stores that do this?

Sorry for getting a little off topic but I believe it was important to bring up quality of service of stores,which shows that they truely care about their customers and employees.

You are right. The Target Halloween campaign was superb. Mr Hames' concepts show a great combination of creativity, attention to design detail and I really appreciate the melding of the scary Halloween concept with cutesy non-frightening versions of our popular iconography. CSA should definitely be applauded, and I eagerly look forward to VSA's contributions to the field in the future as well.

fyi to those who love chuck's masks.
i was wondering if anyone has seen them for sale.
i might sell mine but wasn't sure what they were going for.
i have one set of vac form (the big ones) and one set of the cardboard masks.
both were used for display purposes.

brad