BRANDS, PICTURES AND MEANINGS

[Kevin McLean]

It's all Greg Rowland's fault. He uses cultural theory to analyse and develop brands.

So when I saw this picture today, having met up with Greg at a conference recently, I was suddenly struck by something very odd about it. So I had to look into it. So, in this picture, do you see:

a) a tennis player modelling

b) a model playing tennis (and/or, a model who may actually play tennis)

c) a model modelling

Wimbledon is coming up of course and women tennis players are increasingly celebrated for their glamour and style. Her stance and grip are sort of about right (speaking as a tennis player). And yet...

... the overriding impression I got was not about tennis but about, um, modelling, coming from the overall treatment and 'look' (glossy/plastic, and the pose), the lack of muscle definition... and there is something very odd about the relative size of her and that racket. Is she just very petite, or is that racket an over-sized prop? Is it even a real tennis racket? And that's not really a tennis outfit. Is it?

But it was those shades that ultimately gave the game away.

So it has to be (c), surely. But is it intentional?

Pull back and of course it's an ad for Evian, the official bottled water of Wimbledon. The writing bottom right is not Livia Young, rising tennis star, but 'Live Young' the brand slogan.

Do Evian want us to think that their brand is cool and stylish and has added status given its Wimbledon connection? (Argues in support of a model merely modelling, against Wimbledon backdrop).

Or do they want us to think that Evian has authentic sportiness and refreshment values, in amongst its stylishness?

And is the model in fact a dab hand at tennis? Maybe even an up-and-coming Russian tennis star, who they have wittily dressed in very un-sporty shades? How post-ironic!

And Evian spelled backwards is?