A Slight Detour...
I'm gonna talk about Baby Nut for a second.
 |
| Baby Nut on Twitter |
We all know that the original Mr. Peanut was a bourgeois capitalist hypocrite who sold out his own kind (his fellow nuts) for profit and fame.
So in an effort to move away from the stale and mishandled iconography of the original mascot, the Mr. Peanut brand (Planters) mercilessly killed off their own mascot in the most ridiculous way possible in front of the entire world during the Super Bowl.
But like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Baby Nut was born from the dead remains of Mr. Peanut, fertilized by the tears of the Kool-Aid Man.
It all reads like a highly specific fan-fiction, the kind of which the world was unprepared for.
Conceptually, I actually think that this is a stroke of brilliance, however the execution is what is lacking.
Appearance vs Reality
It is one thing for an advertising campaign to take a swing and a miss, but this was a big swing and a big miss. But oddly enough, not big enough to warrant even all that much bad-publicity. On the day of the Superbowl, this was definitely one the key stand-out moments, but in the last few days, to my knowledge, nothing of consequence has really been happening with Baby Nut.
It is true that Planters is trying to start up a Baby Nut Tour, but what that could possibly contain is beyond me. I thought that the horrible weird look of the Baby Nut was because of a rushed schedule, bad design artists, or company interference. It seemed as if they were trying out a new clean style, but failed to do so properly.
As I've done more and more research into the Baby Nut Twitter Account however, you can see that there's nothing "clean" about this monstrosity.
As I've done more and more research into the Baby Nut Twitter Account however, you can see that there's nothing "clean" about this monstrosity.
 |
| Baby Nut on Twitter |
They keep posting these weird low resolution videos of the Baby Nut dancing and wiggling around in a similar style as the first-generation Veggie Tales. Frankly, it looks like someone made a very bad mod of the video game Fallout, that relies on unrealistic textures that look like hard plastic contorting in too-smooth movements from a sliding skeleton rig.
The feet clip into the floor, the face lies on the surface of the skin like a moving tattoo, and the hat doesn't even have a brim. Not even a brim! It's just a flat piece of paper.
Similarly, even the text-posts aren't worth the effort.
 |
| Baby Nut Twitter |
And that's the point. Baby Nut was never supposed to be something "pure." It was always meant to be somewhat unsettling, because it was made to be mocked. We thought they were jumping on the bandwagon started by Baby Groot, and in a way they are, but they are doing something different.
Baby Yoda is puppet-like to reference original star wars, and make people care about an obviously fake object (we have a hard time connecting to CGI, because it's too good to be true, or too bad to be believable). The makers of the Mandalorian, actually admitted that they made the CGI version of Baby Yoda move like a puppet because people are more willing to care for a physical object with a face that can move than they are a too-realistic "has-to-be-CGI" creation.
Baby Nut on the other hand went in the other direction, being entirely CGI, and being entirely bad CGI. And I think I know why.
In his book, Stand Out of Our Light, James Williams argues that ever since the digital age came about, the idea of advertising has had to evolve into something virtually unrecognizable when compared to how it began.
"The scalability and increasing profitability of digital advertising made it the default business model, and thus incentive structure, for digital platforms and services. As a result, goals and metrics that served the ends of advertising became the dominant goals and metrics in the design of digital services themselves."
I believe that Baby Nut is merely the latest in a series of essentially pointless digital topics, that companies are trying to push specifically with the intention of having something to talk about, so that they can maintain their brand's cultural hold on the populous, despite no new developments in whatever their specialty.
Nuts haven't changed. Peanut butter hasn't changed. Kool-Aid hasn't changed. And yet, companies seem to believe that they must rebrand in order to stay relevant, which in a way is true, and yet they do not even pretend anymore that their rebrand is worth anything, and therefore, we do not find it valuable either.
Now, Kool-Aid is even selling "Magic Tears" as part of a cross-promotion with Planters despite having nothing to do with anything!
I'm actually all on board with this latest promotion, because Kool-Aid creating a new product that doesn't need to exist, but can actually have an impact on my life. I can taste the Magic Tears. I can experience the change. I cannot experience Baby Nut except through social media.
This would be fine, if they were funny. But they are not.
That doesn't mean that they are unsuccessful, or that they cannot become funny or valuable in the future, but if they want to make it funny in a way that is purposefully... I can't believe I'm about to say this...
...Cringy...
...they'll have to go much more amateurish and bad in order to come back around the wheel of popularity to be on top again.
After all, it sparked this absolute masterpiece:
It is based on "Saturn Devouring his Son" by Francisco Goya, in an adaptation that truly captures in horrifying detail the spirit of what I believe is really going on. In this piece, Mr. Peanut isn't the character of Mr. Peanut, but is a representation of Planters itself, trying to milk Baby Nut of everything it is worth, which isn't much.
If you actually compare, both nuts actually have way more pronounced ridges than the recent art style would have you believe, in an effort to evoke original Mr. Peanut imagery and provide further depth into the piece.
Similarly, Baby Nut's colors are much more vibrant than Mr. Peanut's showcasing the potential for growth and life that Baby Nut could have had, if it wasn't being so mishandled by Mr. Peanut (Planters).
Sidenote:
Baby Yoda is the most popular of the babies, but Baby Sonic is the most recent addition. Though I personally have a soft spot for Baby Dory, she is not really a part of the discussion. Weirdly enough, Baby Thanos is a part of the discussion (a bit of sour to make the sweet taste better), despite only ever being mentioned offhandedly to service exposition for how time travel works in the MCU.Back to the Nut:
The CGI in the original video was just good enough to fool people into thinking that Planters was genuinely trying to ride the coattails of Baby Yoda in their rebrand (which in a way they are, but not how we thought). Now it is obviously clear that Baby Nut is purposefully bad.Baby Yoda is puppet-like to reference original star wars, and make people care about an obviously fake object (we have a hard time connecting to CGI, because it's too good to be true, or too bad to be believable). The makers of the Mandalorian, actually admitted that they made the CGI version of Baby Yoda move like a puppet because people are more willing to care for a physical object with a face that can move than they are a too-realistic "has-to-be-CGI" creation.
Baby Nut on the other hand went in the other direction, being entirely CGI, and being entirely bad CGI. And I think I know why.
It was Meme-Bait that No One Took
In his book, Stand Out of Our Light, James Williams argues that ever since the digital age came about, the idea of advertising has had to evolve into something virtually unrecognizable when compared to how it began.
"The scalability and increasing profitability of digital advertising made it the default business model, and thus incentive structure, for digital platforms and services. As a result, goals and metrics that served the ends of advertising became the dominant goals and metrics in the design of digital services themselves."
I believe that Baby Nut is merely the latest in a series of essentially pointless digital topics, that companies are trying to push specifically with the intention of having something to talk about, so that they can maintain their brand's cultural hold on the populous, despite no new developments in whatever their specialty.
Nuts haven't changed. Peanut butter hasn't changed. Kool-Aid hasn't changed. And yet, companies seem to believe that they must rebrand in order to stay relevant, which in a way is true, and yet they do not even pretend anymore that their rebrand is worth anything, and therefore, we do not find it valuable either.
Now, Kool-Aid is even selling "Magic Tears" as part of a cross-promotion with Planters despite having nothing to do with anything!
 |
| Kool-Aid Twitter |
This would be fine, if they were funny. But they are not.
That doesn't mean that they are unsuccessful, or that they cannot become funny or valuable in the future, but if they want to make it funny in a way that is purposefully... I can't believe I'm about to say this...
...Cringy...
...they'll have to go much more amateurish and bad in order to come back around the wheel of popularity to be on top again.
Then again, maybe I'm just crazy.
After all, it sparked this absolute masterpiece:
 |
| Nina Matsumoto "Peanut Devouring his Son" |
It is based on "Saturn Devouring his Son" by Francisco Goya, in an adaptation that truly captures in horrifying detail the spirit of what I believe is really going on. In this piece, Mr. Peanut isn't the character of Mr. Peanut, but is a representation of Planters itself, trying to milk Baby Nut of everything it is worth, which isn't much.
If you actually compare, both nuts actually have way more pronounced ridges than the recent art style would have you believe, in an effort to evoke original Mr. Peanut imagery and provide further depth into the piece.
Similarly, Baby Nut's colors are much more vibrant than Mr. Peanut's showcasing the potential for growth and life that Baby Nut could have had, if it wasn't being so mishandled by Mr. Peanut (Planters).
Am I reading too much into this? I am. But what else can I do in world with no meaning? Enjoy your Baby Nut. I'll enjoy my "Peanut Devouring his Son". That I like.
In fact, if the painting wasn't sold out, I would literally buy it right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment