CrowdConnect is now expanding our teams. Click below to learn more about these exciting opportunities!

• Account Executives
• Creative and Development Interns
• Brand Ambassadors
• Flash Animator

The other evening, as I dozed off on the couch, I began dreaming with the commercials on the television as the sounds guided my imagination to other worlds. Suddenly, I had a rush of anxiety and I shot awake sitting upright with the adrenaline on full throttle. I grabbed for the seat-belt only to realize that I wasn't experiencing a turbulent flight but rather only hearing the Southwest DING! commercial.

How was it that a commercial, designed to teach customers to associate the airplane *ding* with Southwest, could have invoked such a strong reaction in me, as though I were really 30,000 feet above the ground and full of that irrational anxiety that creates morbid, nose-dive, life-ending scenarios?

In Feburary 2005, GSD&M launched Southwest's DING! marketing campaign, which cleverly brands the airplane buckle-your-seat belts *Ding* with the airline. The DING! is now becoming even more strongly associated with Southwest's internet presence and services, which provide up-to-the-minute flight specials and opportunities. I even laugh now every time I see that guy jump over the cubicle just to see the important message from Southwest, despite my panic stricken moment. Ingenious or marketing faux-pas?

We all know how difficult it is to create a simple sound that carries enough weight to achieve brand recognition. NBC, the Olympic Fanfare and Monday Night Football are but a few popular well-known examples. Branding the airplane *ding* provocatively puts Southwest again ahead of the competition by taking a sound ubiquitous to all airplanes and associating it with Southwest. When you hear the *ding* on a competitor's flight, the marketers want you to think of Southwest and unconsciously wonder why you not flying them.

How does this campaign, though, respond to the irrational fears that many people experience when they are on the ground thinking about their next possible flight? This documented condition has airlines providing classes to help their customers overcome and live productively with their fear, and of course, to fly their friendly skies. I know that I'm not the only one who sweats and responds to every bump and noise change while I'm in the air. And that *Ding* is enough to get me in a cold sweat, even if I'm dozing safely in my home on my couch.

The work then of this campaign, for many, is reverse association. Many of us have learned early what that sound means: *ding* -- "Oh s***. we might die." -- and to undo that association and reform another is the dedicated work of a trained psychologist, not a 30-second television spot. Perhaps I'm more sensitive than others. I hope, though, that GSD&M did their research to weigh the pros and cons of this obviously expensive project.

Lucky for Southwest, despite this possible issue, they have an excellent flight record and their customer service and efficiency far surpass their nearest competitor. A friendly, happy staff on the plane, that jokes around in the irrational face of being entirely at the mercy of a machine and its pilots, often is enough to make the experience somewhat more bearable.

My parents (Generation Baby-Boomer) have always complained about how education was better in the good old days, how today's standards have slipped and children are not being taught the necessary cognitive and reasoning skills to be able to live productively in the world. Their famous example is Jay Leno's skit,
Jay Walking, where he interviews 'random' passerbys on the street, asking them seemingly simple questions. The eclectic and oft-idiotic responses he receives demonstrate an American educational system that quite farcically fails.

Apparently, the cultural tides have shifted and there is a growing demand for more cognitive engagement across mediums. The article linked above points to several indicators of this transition, utilizing examples of complicated narrative structures in recent television programming, like *Lost*, that "are less formulaic and pre-digested than their predecessors."

This should be received well; we should embrace such engagement. Yet I wouldn't write this off as simple popular cultural pressure to become more cognitive. Cognition has a much larger connotation in practice and I would argue that the apparent 'intellectualization' of television narrative is, in part, a response to a need to continually surprise and entertain, to consistently provide incremental sensory novelties to the consumer. Where we once would gladly watch an episode of Seinfeld, week after week, with the same jokes, now we want something different, something more.

What is new and surprising to the senses does not necessarily equate to an intellectual stimulant. One aspect of the media is to provide sensory caffeine when we become accustomed and dulled to the same tricks and strategies. Passing off novelty as intellectuality only ofuscates the process. Claiming that popular culture demands consumables that require more thought sounds slightly fishy to me.

'Intellectual consumption' is not intellectual retention and development. However, the mere fact that the media is discussing this topic makes it something that becomes more popular and then, snow-balling takes hold. The more we speak of it; the stronger positive effect it has in the public consciousness. And that's a good thing.