Enough, already, Orange

I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit tired of Orange's cutesy-cutesy advertising. They're rightly regarded as one of the smartest brands around, but this latest ad feels to me like the whole 'we're much more than just a mobile company' thing has been pushed too far.

After that cute bicycle wheeling itself around in the night, and those cute people who broke up cutely into lots of other cute people in a really cute way, the latest spot lays on the cuteness even more heavily, as a childish voice witters on about liking dreams about bees (or something), and an appropriately cool, funky young woman tows large, cute semi-sculptures - like pantomime sets or oversized toys - into the frame.

It's too much - like eating a couple of profiteroles too many. And to my mind, it's a perfect example of the danger of 'over-branding'. Brands like Orange have succeeded by creating relationships with consumers that go way beyond functionality. (But which are, of course, grounded in that functionality.)

But now I get the feeling Orange is trying to push itself almost as some sort of spiritual force in my life - the liberator of all my joy and happiness. (Presumably because of all the unlimited something-or-others they mention at the end - I've forgotten what it was.)

This has been building for a while, I think. That (beautifully made) ad about how the New York blackout brought everyone together in a really lovely way (don't mention the looting) felt to me like the fairly lazy, and not very credible, bolting-on of a brand to a 'real' experience. For me that ad was, if you like, the first profiterole.

It's all subjective though, isn't it? After all, I feel similarly about that ridiculous, overblown Guinness 'Surfers' film, which I loathe. (Bring back Rutger Hauer!). But it consistently wins public and industry polls of the best ads ever made. So what do I know? You do what you like, Orange. It seems to be working.

McMeanings

As you may have read, McDonalds have been getting very cross recently (and rather belatedly) about the OED definition of a 'McJob'.

This term first emerged in the '80s, and was rocketed to linguistic stardom when it appeared in Douglas Coupland's Generation X.

It eventually proved so enduring that it made its way into the OED, which defines a McJob as 'an unstimulating, low-paid job with few prospects, esp. one created by the expansion of the service sector.' Unsurprisingly, McDonald's aren't too happy about that. And they're trying to get the definition changed.

But of course it's not the dictionary that sets the meaning of words. As the OED's spokeswoman said, 'We monitor changes in the language and reflect these in our definitions'. Ultimately, it's the public that establishes the meaning of words - just as we establish the meaning of brands.

'McJob' has thrived as a word because it resonates with our perception of what working in McDonald's is like. And however much the company jumps up and down, they can't force people to change that perception. All they can do is change their business (as they say they have), and do what they can to persuade people about that change.

The trouble is, 'McJob' now applies to a much broader spectrum of work than just flipping Ronald's burgers. The word has taken on a life of its own, as words will. So however wonderful they make working at McDonald's, 'McJobs' will still be around. It may take a very long time to shift that definition.