Mediaboss Marketing

Creative director of the maison explains his vision as he drives the company forward, while keeping its values firmly rooted in its heritage

By Kim Soo-jin

22 Aug 2017

Montblanc is a 110-year-old heritage brand. How do you keep the maisons heritage in tact while embracing modernity and change?

Change is part of Montblancs DNA. Montblanc is what I call a heritage maison, meaning its heritage comes with values in this case, the values inherent in our craftsmanship, excellence and innovation. And these values evolve over time, so that what we considered to be innovation 10 years ago is not what we consider it to be today, or what it will be tomorrow. So this evolution of our values allows us to keep moving forward without forsaking the heritage of the maison.

You describe your target client as a young urban progressive, rather than a young urban professional what is the difference?

The word professional has very specific connotations and I would say if [we had been talking about a client between] 2013 and mid-2016, we could have used professional as well. A progressive is basically a person who is a professional, but in a profession that is not yet necessarily defined. [When you hear] professional, you think of lawyers and doctors and of a certain kind of mentality. A progressive is somebody who does his own thing because he believes in it, and he has his roots in [it]. In fact, it doesnt matter if hes working in a profession that we know of, or if hes creating his own identity. So thats why we use progressive because it opens up the world.

Montblanc launches limited edition fountain pens in tribute to scientific work of Johannes Kepler

Which collections or products has the Chinese market responded well to? And how are you catering to this market?

In the last five years, globally, theres been a lot of blurring of cultures, genders, ages and nationalities. We cater to the urban young progressive, and the requirements of progressives around the world have merged and become very similar. The requirements of a young urban progressive in Shanghai or Hong Kong are similar to those of a progressive in London, New York or Milan. When I worked in fashion, I did a collection 20 years ago, and we had to do a Japanese collection, an American collection, a German collection, and a Chinese collection. Now, because the requirements of progressives everywhere are so similar, everything depends on aesthetics and on what the client wishes to express. You cannot say something works only in China or only in Europe. Its very much to do with the way in which people want to express themselves.

Montblanc dares to take risks with new grand complications

What is the biggest challenge that the maison faces right now?

I think the biggest [challenge] we face that everyone faces is that theres a lot of noise around. Theres information that everyone has access to. I come from a fashion background, and in the early days we used to work with the agencies. We understood trends and told our clients what those trends [were] going to be. Now, our clients have access to exactly the same tools that we have. But the challenge is to remain relevant and to create products that our clients can identify with. And I think it is very important to maintain this, otherwise you lose your identity somewhere.

Swiss smartwatches multiply as makers hunt millennial buyers

Montblanc has released its first smart watch, the Summit. How is the maison making its first wearable technology stand out from the crowd?

It starts with the case. When we began thinking about the smart watch, we wanted to see where it would live within the Montblanc watch universe. The 1858 collection was chosen for two reasons: first, it connects with our Minerva heritage in Villeret. Second, we were wondering, how does one interact with our mechanical watches? Its through the crown. When you push [the crown] it has a mechanical feel, so we decided that this would be how a wearer should interact with our digital watch. Another important aspect is the curved sapphire glass. The Summit has this slightly curved dome, so you have all this tactility it feels different, if feels more like a mechanical piece. So all these elements, when combined, create a piece that feels like a mechanical watch, but which provides all the benefits of being connected.

This article was originally published in Destination Macau

Here is the original post:
Montblanc creative director Zaim Kamal talks China's progressives and smart watches - South China Morning Post

Arlie Russell Hochschild, The Washington Post

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

Book World: Prescription for progressives: Focus on elections, not protests

The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics

By Mark Lilla

Harper. 143 pp. $24.99

---

The country confronts an extraordinary challenge from the right. President Trump's budget proposes to cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 31 percent, the Department of Education by 13.5 percent and the State Department by 30 percent, while boosting the military by 10 percent. Former adviser Stephen Bannon, a hero of the alt-right (a small, far-right movement that seeks a whites-only state), had whispered in the presidential ear about dismantling the "administrative state," and a White House rhetorical campaign continues to delegitimize an independent judiciary and press. But are liberals in any shape to offer a compelling alternative vision? Can the myriad groups under the Democratic tent even work together? These questions have driven Mark Lilla to write his latest book, "The Once and Future Liberal."

A professor of humanities at Columbia, and the author of five books on political philosophy including "The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction," Lilla in his new book issues an important, passionate and highly critical wake-up call to liberals who, he believes, are stuck in the mud. In its early stages, his argument is illuminating but then veers seriously off course before ending up focusing on the right goal. First, he contends, the Democrats have been whipped bigly, as Trump might say, at every level of electoral politics. Second, Lilla believes that liberals haven't learned from their failure to appeal to voters. Third, they now have a window of opportunity. But, fourth, though liberals believe they are seizing the moment, they are not, because they are not focusing on elections. "If the steady advance of a radicalized Republican Party, over many years and in every branch and at every level of government, should teach liberals anything," Lilla writes, "it is the absolute priority of winning elections today."

Resistance isn't enough, Lilla says. Liberals need to join in support of a common set of ideals and policies. Lilla compares the Republican Party's website - which features "Principles of American Renewal" - with that of the Democratic Party, one of whose topic areas is "People." In that category are women; Hispanics; the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community; the Jewish community, Native Americans - in all, 17 separate groups, each with a unique message. Republicans reach out, make coalitions, focus on electoral office, and that's proved successful, Lilla says. If "we want to protect black motorists from police abuse, or gay and lesbian couples from harassment on the street," Lilla writes, "we need state attorneys general willing to prosecute such cases, and state judges willing to enforce the law. And the only way to make sure we get them is to elect liberal Democratic governors and state legislators who will make the appointments." So far, so good.

Lilla then describes liberalism's double-edged legacy from the New Left of the 1960s. As he puts it, the left "spawned identity-based social movements - for affirmative action and diversity, feminism, gay liberation - that have made this country a more tolerant, more just and more inclusive place than it was fifty years ago." But it also unwittingly "shifted the focus of American liberalism ... from commonality to difference." He adds, all too briefly, that what's missing is a cogent analysis of the painful class split in America that was abundantly revealed in our recent election. Again, so far, so good.

Then Lilla wades into stormy waters. Identity politics has launched liberals into a "victimhood Olympics," he asserts. Sure, I'd say, we have some of that. But, he concludes, "given the Republicans' rage for destruction, [winning elections] is the (BEGIN ITAL)only(END ITAL) way to guarantee that newly won protections for African-Americans, other minorities, women and gay Americans remain in place. Workshops and university seminars will not do it. Online mobilizing and flash mobs will not do it. Protesting, acting up and acting out will not do it. The age of movement politics is over, at least for now. We need no more marchers. We need more mayors. And governors, and state legislators, and members of Congress." Here I say, wait a minute. Whoa!

What Lilla isn't seeing is that we come to electoral politics in many different ways. Some people come to it through a desire for public service, bypassing social movements altogether. Others join social movements, get stuck in identity silos and ignore elections. This book is for them. But many others - like myself - were drawn to politics by participating in social movements. When I was in high school, politics seemed very much a male realm. It was through feminism that I learned that I, too, had a voice, could join the conversation, advocate, petition, vote. Again, it was as a civil rights worker in the South that I got a frightening look at the link between race and electoral politics.

We need social movements, and we need to move outward from them. I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a young black man who approached me after a talk I gave at the University of California at Berkeley. He referred to a June front-page photo in the New York Times of black Harvard graduate students in caps and gowns at their own black graduation ceremony. On the same page, he saw a photo of a white man above a headline reading "Fringe Groups Revel as Protests Turn Violent," whom he guessed not to be a college graduate. "I wish some of the black graduates from the top picture could tell the white guy from the bottom picture, 'Hey, we're not leaving you out.'" Then he added, "But if I drive three hours north from Berkeley, I don't feel safe as a black man." The young man felt both a need for a movement and a determination to reach common ground with others beyond it. This view is echoed by leaders such as the Rev. William Barber II, a pastor who spoke at New York's Riverside Morning Church on the anniversary of Martin Luther King's Vietnam speech and who has launched an ecumenical "Repairers of the Breach" movement. In 2013, he led peaceful Moral Mondays demonstrations at the North Carolina General Assembly to protest restrictions on voting.

Lilla's message to liberals is timely and welcome. But he might better advise them: Go on your march. Join the marches of other groups, too. And continue to protest, above all. Then come home and organize that fundraiser for your favorite candidate for governor, the state legislature or Congress.

---

Hochschild's latest book is "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right," a finalist for the National Book Award.

Link:
Book World: Prescription for progressives: Focus on elections, not protests - The Edwardsville Intelligencer

Just about every week, I contact my State Delegate, begging him to a) speak out and do everything in his power to oppose the pipelines, and b) refuse to take money from Dominion Power. And yet, he hasnt agreed to do either. Its frustrating and disheartening sometimes. Many of my friends know my arguments (heck, my 8 year old son can explain it): these pipelines are bad for our environment, bad for our water quality, dont help anywhere near the numbers of people they claim to help, and most importantly to me, they use eminent domain laws to strip historic land from African American families whove owned it since they were freed from slavery. Its a heartbreaking issue, and one that is very important to me.

So, will I not vote for my Delegate this year then?

Oh, is that where you thought this was going? You couldnt be farther from the truth! I absolutely adore my Delegate, and he knows it! He has my vote for as long as he runs. If a Republican challenged him, Id be the first person out campaigning my tail off for him. Id give him my time, my money, and my energy. In fact, and I had to think about this one for a minute, if he were primaried by a Democrateven if that Democrat opposed the pipelines and refused Dominion moneyI would still not change my vote.

Does that mean the pipelines arent really that important to me? No, they really are one of the most important issues being decided right now. And this is not a single issueit cuts across economic justice, environmentalism, economics, social justice.

So why will I still vote for my Delegate? For one thing, because hes outstanding on so many other issues. He had the worst batting average of anyone in the House last year, and given that progressives are in a very small minority there, I consider that a badge of honor. Second, he works his tail off, all year round, serving my town, and Virginia. Theres rarely a minute outside of his real job (the one that almost all of our legislators still have to hold down, because we dont actually pay legislators a living wage, since its technically a part-year job) that he isnt meeting with constituents or attending events or speaking truth to power all over social media.

But the most important reason I would still walk through walls for my Delegate is that every week I contact him about this pipeline/Dominion issue that matters so much to me. And every week, he genuinely listens to me. He doesnt patronize me or attempt to diminish my strong views on this. The fact that we can have this back and forth dialogue about issues we differ on is exactly how democracy SHOULD work. Its up to us as representees to convince representers.

So, where does that leave me with Ralph Northam? Well, he has my vote, for reason number one above. Thats been true since the minute he won the primary. But for me to get from there to walk through walls? Well, theres a little ways to go on that for me, more of that number three reason needs to happen. Its not about some purity test; its about him being my representative, my voice, and to do that he needs to listen.

Northam made a start a week ago, attending an energy discussion in Arlington where he stayed and took questionsmostly about the pipelinesfor an hour. And sure enough, I found myself just a couple days later, arguing online with someone (a Democrat) about why they should vote for him. It turns out its not that hard to inspire people and turn out your baseyou just have to be willing to listen to them!

Read more from the original source:
Pipeline Voting for Progressives - Blue Virginia (press release) (blog)

This article originally appeared on AlterNet

The worlds most pervasive form of exploitation, along with its resultant environmental harm, cant be laid at the feet of Republicans, conservatives or those we define as bigots in our society. Thats because both sides of the aisle participate in the needless consumption of animals.

Consumers are increasingly made aware that countless sentient beings, just like companion dogs and cats, are abused and slaughtered for products we dont really need. Marketers convince the public that animal exploitation is necessary to sustain human life. But its not true.

This profiteering is a byproduct of unchecked capitalism, producing food products thatcausecancer, contribute to obesity and exacerbate the diabetes crisis.

Public consciousness is sorely lagging on the issue. Standing against the exploitation of sentient beings outside our own species is often considered superfluous by progressives who embrace radical thought in other areas. Its not uncommon to hear a supposed liberal accuse vegans of not caring enough about humans.

The evasive rhetoric is familiar: a class of beings is rendered invisible by others who view their bodies as a means to an end. This is the same thinking that propagated a system of human slavery in the U.S., a system thatcontinuestoday as mass incarceration. In fact, the economy of animal agriculture runs directly parallel to the prison-industrial complex. Sentient life is commodified, stripped of personhood and traded as property for a ruling class.

The exploitation of animals by humans is a stunning example of progressive deference to the normalcy of oppression. Even staunch conservative Charles Krauthammer isahead of most progressiveson animal rights. We need a consumption revolution.

Some progressives are starting to take notice and acknowledge that the systemic exploitation of billions of animals a year for profit is a disgraceful problem. A Saloneditorial by Steven Stankeviciusoutlinedthe reasons New Atheists are engaging in overt hypocrisy when they knowingly contribute to atrocity while decrying the beliefs of others as contributors to this atrocity.

Dr. Melanie Joy, a social psychologist and author who serves as a professor at University of Massachusetts Boston, developed ahypothesisto explain why humans seem to hit a moral brick wall when confronted with their treatment of other species. Joy compares the normalization of animal exploitation to patriarchy; both represent ideologies that arent often recognized because theyre so dominant. This comparison should probably be credited to Carol Adams, whose groundbreaking 1990 book The Sexual Politics of Meat remains an influential text of both feminist and animal rights literature.

A study released by Lancaster University confirms the observations made by Joy and Adams. The collaborative efforts of U.S. and Australian researchersfoundthat people who consume animals are more likely to support social inequality.

Many well-meaning people believe that giving up meat addresses the entire issue. But the treatment of animals as property for any reason is the real problem.

Some of the most egregious animal welfare violations occur in the production of dairy products and eggs. Our consumption of dairy milk requires a cycle of brutality in which the cow is repeatedly forcibly impregnated, her calves taken from her, and eventually, when her milk production dwindles, she suffers a violent death. Chickens farmed for eggs are among themost abused animalson the planet.

Beyond the animal abuses associated with the production of food, clothing and other products, animal agriculture, including the resources used to sustain it, is aleading causeof global climate change. The atmosphere doesnt distinguish between meat, dairy or leather. Farmed animals increase greenhouse gas emissions just by being bred into existence.

The United Nations is finally conceding that what started as an ethical problem has metastasized into an existential threat to human beings. A U.N.reportstates that moving away from animal consumption is imperative to avoid the worst-case scenario for global poverty, hunger and climate change-related impacts.

We progressives are faced with a choice between living our stated ideology or upholding the status quo each time we sit down to a meal. A serious anti-oppression movement cant have the bodies and byproducts of exploited beings on its plate while claiming moral superiority. If we continue to exploit animals while protesting oppression, then the conservatives are right about us were a movement of hypocrites.

Visit link:
If we can't defend animal rights, we don't deserve to call ourselves progressives - Salon

The events in Charlottesville have rocked the nation in a way it hasn't seen in years, maybe decades. If anything it should motivate the public to take a step back. Yes, a step back in every sense of the word. Step back in terms of national identity, generational progress, and perceived equality. It's hard to admit that, as a nation, we cannot simply plow ahead. Most people know what is right, just, peaceful, and equal, but it's about what to do next. A step back provides a perspective on the next two steps, and the first of the two may need to be a step to the side.

The concept of Conservatism, in my view, has three basic positions: throw society back to a previous time completely, keep society as it is right now, and preserve the core values of society while letting inefficient or ugly offshoot values go. Most conservative thought resides in the latter two with a significant lean towards the third. In this mindset the conservative voice must be careful from moving too quickly. It is cautious of change because history shows that not all change is speaking to the core values of humanity. And so, there must be a constant revision of how those values shine in society at large.

Of course this does not operate in a vacuum, yet in the pull of the opposing side. The United States is a two party system, which operates a check on one another. Conservatives generally want to slow the cart down not knowing if there is a cliff up ahead, and progressives warn if the cart is not moving fast enough it will get stuck in the mud. As this tug of war happens, progressives will see a need for change and find the shortest route to pull the cart. At the same time, being cautious of change, conservatives would like to consult a map. Either position when taken alone is unwise. It can lead to the wrong turn having the cart facing the wrong way, or it spends time with an outdated point of view that stops the cart while ignoring looming disaster. Essentially, progressives can't pull the cart out of the mud without conservatives, and conservatives can't follow a safe path without progressives.

In recent events, there should be no question in which way the cart should move. Hate is not a core value. It doesn't take deep revision of American history or American values to see that fascism, in particular Nazism, is nothing to conserve. It doesn't take deep revision to see that a confederate flag is not simply a symbol of counter mainstream identity. Many communities are revising symbols of their values for today, tomorrow, and the next generation. It doesn't mean they are changing history, but coming to terms with history. It doesn't mean they are they are smashing culture, but conserving a more accurate map of culture.

Conservative revision is progressive in power rather than amount. It must constantly restate the values it believes and check them over and over again. Some are doing this better than others apparent in how the latest adversity revealed their character. Violence is not the answer, but violence will happen if we don't move the cart to clearer skies and safer ground. Conserve our values by taking a step back so we can find a sure path forward. Rather than add dead weight, a leader should denounce evil and move the country out of the mud.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

Read more from the original source:
Conservatives are Powerful Progressives - HuffPost