Australian beverage innovator StrangeLove Beverage Co. has embarked on an ambitious journey with the launch of its first large-scale Above The Line (ATL) marketing campaign. This marks a significant milestone for the brand, which started in 2012 with a humble ginger beer energy elixir. Over the past decade, StrangeLove has evolved into a diverse product line featuring over 40 offerings across three main categories: Lo-Cal Soda, Mineral Water, and Premium Mixers. Each product reflects the company's unwavering dedication to crafting unique and exceptional beverages.
The complexity behind StrangeLove's extensive range of products stems from its commitment to sourcing rare and high-quality ingredients. However, this intricate supply chain posed challenges in clearly communicating the brand's core message. Recognizing this issue, co-founder and creative director James Bruce sought external expertise to refine the brand's identity. Through extensive collaboration with Today the Brave, StrangeLove distilled its essence into a straightforward yet powerful statement: "Drinks for drinks' sake." This platform encapsulates the brand's mission to create outstanding beverages that enhance the drinking experience without constraints of category or convention.
This new campaign embodies the spirit of innovation and irreverence that defines StrangeLove. Partnering with Today the Brave has allowed the brand to articulate its vision more effectively while maintaining its signature dark humor. As the campaign rolls out during the summer months in major Australian cities, consumers can expect a refreshing and disruptive presence in the premium mixer and adult soft drink market. StrangeLove is not just offering drinks; it's redefining the way people think about and enjoy their beverages, bringing a much-needed sense of fun and creativity to the industry.
Public Land or Commercial Gain: The Battle Over Crystal Lake's Future
The Historical Significance of Bellows Park
Nestled along the picturesque shores of Crystal Lake, Bellows Park holds a special place in the hearts of many locals. Established in 1938 through a generous gift from the Bellows family, this park remains one of the few publicly accessible beaches on the lake. The deed accompanying the donation stipulated two key conditions: the land must remain for public use and be named Elwin H. Bellows Park. Today, this historic site stands at the center of a contentious dispute.The park’s tranquil ambiance and scenic beauty have long been cherished by residents and visitors alike. Families gather here for picnics, sunbathing, and leisurely strolls along the shoreline. However, recent developments have cast a shadow over this beloved landmark. As plans for a cell tower on the hillside behind the park move forward, many fear that the park’s natural charm and public integrity are at risk.The Role of Local Authorities and Stakeholders
At the heart of this controversy lies the city of Frankfort, which owns the property where the cell tower is being constructed. City officials argue that the project aligns with modern infrastructure needs and will enhance emergency response capabilities. According to Josh Mills, the city superintendent, Crystal Lake Township approached American Tower about placing the facility on city-owned land. Mills emphasized that such arrangements are common practice, as tower companies prefer public properties due to their flexibility and accessibility.Mills also highlighted the financial benefits for Frankfort, noting that the city will receive $1,000 monthly from the lease agreement. This revenue, he explained, can be reinvested into community projects and services. Moreover, the improved communication infrastructure promises better connectivity, especially in emergencies, ensuring that residents can reach critical services more effectively.Community Opposition and Legal Scrutiny
Despite these justifications, opposition from local residents has been vocal. Nancy Smith, who resides near the construction site, expressed deep reservations about the project. She believes that the city should prioritize the original intent of the deed, preserving the land for public enjoyment rather than commercial exploitation. Smith and other concerned citizens feel that the decision was made without sufficient public input, undermining the community’s voice in matters affecting their environment.Smith has taken proactive steps to challenge the legality of the tower’s placement. An attorney is reviewing the 1938 deed to determine if the current plans violate its restrictions. If the legal analysis confirms a breach, it could lead to significant changes in the project’s trajectory. Meanwhile, the debate continues to simmer, with both sides presenting compelling arguments.Environmental and Aesthetic Concerns
Beyond the legal and financial aspects, environmental and aesthetic considerations play a crucial role in the ongoing discussion. Critics argue that the cell tower will mar the natural beauty of the area, disrupting the harmony between man-made structures and nature. Trees, once standing tall and proud, may now be overshadowed by the imposing presence of the tower.The visual impact extends beyond mere aesthetics; it affects the overall experience for park visitors. Many worry that the intrusion of industrial infrastructure will detract from the peaceful atmosphere that draws people to Bellows Park. Conservationists advocate for alternative solutions that balance technological advancement with environmental stewardship, ensuring that future generations can enjoy the park’s unspoiled splendor.The Broader Implications for Public Spaces
This conflict underscores broader issues surrounding the use of public lands. As communities grow and technology advances, the pressure to repurpose these spaces for modern needs intensifies. Balancing progress with preservation becomes increasingly complex, requiring thoughtful deliberation and inclusive decision-making processes.In the case of Bellows Park, the controversy serves as a microcosm of larger debates about how societies value and protect communal assets. It raises questions about the responsibilities of local governments as stewards of public trust and the importance of transparency in policy decisions. Ultimately, finding a resolution that honors historical commitments while addressing contemporary demands will be essential for maintaining the integrity of beloved landmarks like Bellows Park.In a significant move to address labor and housing standards, Vermont Construction Company has announced a preliminary partnership with a Minneapolis-based nonprofit, the Building Dignity and Respect Standards Council. This collaboration aims to ensure fair treatment of workers and subcontractors through rigorous monitoring and enforcement. The agreement is groundbreaking for Vermont's construction industry, setting new benchmarks for accountability and worker welfare.
The decision comes in response to recent violations uncovered by the town of Colchester, which cited unsafe living conditions for company workers. The partnership marks an effort to rectify these issues and establish a model that could be replicated across the state. Doug Mork, executive director of the nonprofit, emphasized that this is just the beginning, with plans to formalize a legally binding contract before the upcoming construction season. The initiative also aligns with similar programs like Vermont’s Milk with Dignity, which monitors workers' rights in the dairy sector.
The town of Colchester issued multiple violations against Vermont Construction Company in December 2024, highlighting hazardous living conditions at properties used to house workers. These spaces lacked essential safety features such as smoke detectors and fire extinguishers, posing serious risks to occupants. Following these revelations, the company approached Migrant Justice, expressing interest in adopting a program similar to Milk with Dignity. This led to the introduction of the Building Dignity and Respect Standards Council, which specializes in ensuring fair labor practices within the construction industry.
Under the proposed agreement, the nonprofit will conduct audits of job sites and any provided worker housing to ensure compliance with established standards. If any subcontractor fails to meet these criteria, they will no longer be eligible to work with Vermont Construction Company. This proactive approach aims to set a precedent for responsible business practices in the construction sector. Mork noted that expanding this model in Vermont would be more feasible due to existing infrastructure and partnerships with organizations like Migrant Justice.
The partnership represents a pivotal moment for labor rights in Vermont’s construction industry. By engaging with worker-centered nonprofits, companies can take meaningful steps towards ensuring safer working environments and fair treatment for all employees. As discussions progress, stakeholders anticipate that this collaboration will not only benefit Vermont Construction Company but also serve as a blueprint for other firms looking to enhance their labor standards.