Branding, Culture, Politics, and Everything in Between

The cultural dynamics of so-called new retro products is something that I’ve tried to get my head around for a while now, and now that Adidas has a new website out for Adidas Orginals, I thought I’d discuss the topic a bit. I’m a certified Adidas fiend, I think I have over eight adidas track jackets (both old and new) and seven pairs of sneakers, so this is as much self-analysis as it is brand analysis.

Adidas is one of those brands that can boast to have true cultural icons in their offering. For example, the Adidas Superstar, which was made famous by Run DMC in the 1980s, or the Copa Mundial, which was THE soccer shoe in the 1970s all the way up to the 1990s. Their three stripe design has remained iconic on track suits and shoes alike.

It’s my educated guess that their ageless design contributed heavily to their popularity at second hand shops and flea markets, which started sometime in the 1990s. I’ve personally paid over 60€ at a second hand shop in Berlin for a used, worn down track jacket that I just HAD to have (am I right, ladies?).

I have three theories as to why having an original design became a identity badge. One option is that Adidas’ business and cultural meaning changed in the 1990s so that the “old” Adidas designs became a way to protest the new direction (for example, Adidas had ditched the old classic logo in 1991). Another option is that old designs became a way to distinguish your worthiness as the brand’s fanatic: if anybody could buy new, and rather similar designs than the old ones at any store, then old ones are a way to create scarcity and exclusiveness for the brand. A third option is that a culturally relevant subculture took the old Adidas designs as their own, and this cultural meaning appealed to the rest of the population.

The truth is probably something relating to all three, but my guess is that the latter two are the strongest drivers for the trend.

It didn’t take long for Adidas to pick up on the trend of their old stuff being in high demand and gear their efforts to ride this trend. In time, Adidas had launched Adidas Originals, a separate line from the new mother brand that deals exclusively in classic designs. Adidas Originals even has their own concept stores around the world, and they have plans to add more of these in the future.

For Adidas, the goal with Adidas Originals has always been to convince people that they are the same thing as finding similar designs at second hand shops. It’s a nearly impossible proposition, but to me they’ve managed to sell people the idea that buying an Adidas Original is “good enough” quite well. They’ve also managed to create some scarcity for the designs, which was essential with second hand finds, by having a large collection of different designs but keeping the designs as limited editions.

In advertising campaigns they’ve celebrated their heritage with old Adidas icons (such as Gerd Müller and Run DMC) to create a credible link between new and old. The website they’ve just launched is about “celebrating originality” and Adidas’ 60 year heritage as a brand. They’re constantly balancing between having it as a retrospect, but also going forward with promoting the new and retro designs.

It’s an interesting exericise in meaning management from Adidas, and I think they’ve handled it quite well.

So now that fixie bikes are now more or less mainstream, the originators of this trend are probably feeling a bit resentful of the trend hopping newcomers. Or, as it was eloquently put in the article I linked:

We all know there’s a real culture of fixie riders, especially with the messengers. But let’s all be honest with ourselves. Up until about a year or two ago only messengers and a select few others were on these things, but at the last Critical Mass I rode in the crowd had a huge percentage of fixie riders. There were more fixies than I could count.

Now it’s cool and all that people try new things. After all, everyone has a right to hop on a fixie and custom paint it and get a carbon front wheel and add a top-tube pad for extra cool points, then put on their hottest outfit to ride around in. It’s the hipster version of an Escalade on 22′s.

But when I see the list of people picking up on the trend these days it’s kind of disheartening. Lots of ‘indie’ types, lots of ‘creatives’, lots of ‘I’m not ready to be a 30-something yet so I’ll get a fixie to feel young again’.

Oh well, in a few years when it cools off there’ll be a lot of good deals on Craigslist…

Insiders resenting newcomers is a natural and expected response to newcomers coming on their cultural turf. You think Hell’s Angels took kindly to middle-aged men when they made Harley Davidson into a mechanized version of Viagra? When feeders start sucking of a brand’s or cultural movement’s meaning, the insiders are bound to tighten their ranks and look to exclude the newcomers. In Harley’s case they did this via newcomer jokes, putting more meaning on fixing your own bike as a rite of passage, glorifying older and discontiunued bike models etc.

With fixies it’s harder for insiders to show their exclusivity and worthiness in relation to the trend-hopping feeders. After all, fixie bikes are quite simple to build and it’s hard to distinguish an original bike from one a newcomer built, so it’s hard to discriminate by scarcity. Fixie lovers are a heterogenous group (save for bike messengers) so there might not be any traditional external identifiers of who’s worthy and who’s not (correct me if I’m wrong).

My educated guess is that the so-called mutant bike movement feeds from this resentment towards the fixie craze. The bikes are almost impossible to ride, but I guess that’s the whole point. Only an enthusiast would go through the trouble to build one. I would like to know if these mutant bike enthusiasts are old fixie builders as well.

See if you can hop on THIS bandwagon!

Hat tip to Murketing.

Nicked this from Rob Walker’s links: The Anti-consumers – Five Groups That Aren’t Buying It. As the title suggests, it’s a list of five distinct groups that really and thoroughly reject consumerism and marketing.

I was half expecting to find on the list some groups of people who say that marketing doesn’t “affect them” and they only buy stuff that they “know” are good brands (you have no idea how often I’ve heard that), but the groups were actually quite serious in their rejection of consumption. If you’re too busy to click on the link, just know this: one of the groups is the Amish, and the other four are equally committed. So yes, I think these five groups are legit in their rejection of consumerism, but let’s come back to the group that I already half identified there: somewhat normal people who swear off marketing and state that it has no impact on them.

For consumers, what they don’t consume is usually an even more powerful identity statement than what they do. So in effect, non-consumers, big brand haters, leftists, hippies, whatever the group may be, usually do have favorite brands and strong emotional ties to them (like anything carrying a Fair Trade logo), but the consumption of these brands is driven by the fact that they are usually the antithesis to some big brands these consumers are actively opposing. Put it this way: they might actively reject McDonald’s’ marketing efforts, yes, but by running away from McDonald’s, the are also running towards brands that stand against everything McDonald’s stands for. Douglas Holt did a wonderful study on anti-consumers like this in his paper “Why do Brands Cause Trouble?” (PDF). I’ve linked to the study before, and it is a must read for any marketer.

This is not a logo… right?

I was talking to my cousin the other day and he recounted a rather interesting example that mirrors this kind of behavior. My cousin is studying philosophy and he had done his bachelor’s thesis on the ethical questions surrounding pharmaceutical companies (to put it short), and he enlightened me on the effects of so-called health advertising. As advertising for pharmaceutical products has boomed and gotten more and more intrusive (especially in the US, think “ask your doctor if you should be taking Tylenol”), so has the amount of people who actively try to reject this kind of pill-based western medicine. These people feel that pharmaceuticals are promoting over-medication and unnatural remedies just for their own profit, and so these people are driven to holistic and eastern medicine, mysticism and consumption of herbal remedies, just to name a few.

But the interesting thing here is that at the same time people are not just trading their previous habits for staying healthy for different ones, they’ve supercharged their personal health care. Where as in the past they might have jogged once a week and eaten a vitamin pill or two every week, now they chug green tea by the gallon, attend yoga classes many times a week and change their diet entirely.

So the message of the pharmaceuticals has sunk hook, line, and sinker: there is something wrong with my health and I need to fix it somehow. It’s just the messenger’s solution they’re not buying. Marketers are nothing if not culture makers, and it’s examples like these that show how far this kind of cultural influence can go.

Ad-Age tells us that Crispin, Porter & Bogusky has been named agency of the year. I don’t follow the ad agency scene that tightly (even though I probably should), but their work with the Microsoft account plus the buzz they’ve gathered for Burger King makes me think Ad-Age made the right choice.

Here’s an excerpt from the story that I greeted with a satisfied nod (emphasis added):

In honor of Coke Zero’s appointment as lead sponsor of the Coke family of Nascar drivers last year, Crispin built a video game, Rooftop Racer, that places the soft drink front and center. It also struck a branded deal with “The Jimmy Kimmel Show,” spurred out of the host and comedian’s love for the beverage. “What Crispin does is take a simple proposition that we know we need from a product, and they somehow make it entertainment,” said Mr. Shunker. “They don’t mirror pop culture — they help create it.”

There’s a significant distinction there that’s at the center of Crispin’s success. Any agency can hire trend-spotters who collect pop-culture insights that become the foundation of an ad, but Crispin’s work is more culturally primal than that.

The agency creates the stuff that infiltrates, and actually becomes the culture.

The article goes on to blast Crispin’s work on Microsoft so far, though. I personally disagree about the campaign’s so called failure. I think as far as starting to carve a set of new meanings for Microsoft, it’s been very intriguing. Also, it will take time to show true benefits.

Microsoft has been going for quirky, weird and cutesy advertising since Bogusky & co. took over the job. They launched the campaing with a bang, even if it was a bit challenging for the average consumer. But then they really made their mark with the “I’m a PC” campaign.

Apple has been going after Microsoft with their famous “Mac vs. PC” ads. Now, Microsoft is fighting back, but not as directly as Apple did before (Check out the clever use of a Macbook Pro in the video above). Where as Apple was making direct comparisons between the two and taking pot shots at the company Gates built, Microsoft has sort of declared itself above the whole debate and is trying to paint Apple as a brand that takes itself a bit too seriously. Apple’s strategy was more divisive, aggressive. Microsoft is more inclusive and to me, much more clever.

Following up a previous post again. There’s an old saying that as the the economy goes down, ladies’ skirts get shorter. This axiom is supposedly due to women trying to save in garment material when times are tough, but the culturally savvy could argue that tough economic times work as an incentive for women to attract a partner, at least in the older days. That’s why the shorter skirt.

For the culturally inclined, a recession is very intriguing because of how much it shakes up people’s everyday lives – not just economically but culturally. I remember reading a few years ago about a study (which I was unable to find by googling, sorry) that stated that when the economy is good, clean cut and more androgynous men (think Jude Law or Johnny Depp) become more desirable to women, but when the economy goes down, burly and more masculine men (think Hugh Jackman or Russel Crowe) become more favorable again. I guess this has to do with a sense of security or people being drawn to more traditional values. Either way, I find stuff like this fascinating, and I’m keeping my eyes open for any news like this.

What else is the down economy inspiring? Well, Salon.com is reporting that some women are almost eager skip to Brazilian waxes at beauty salons in a down economy. Some are going to let the hair grow back, to some, as said in the article, “It’s back to shaving in the shower for me.” Regardless, women being ready to cut back on spending on something that at first thought feels quite intimate is intriguing. What else? As common sense would dictate, people are going for more alcohol rich boozes because of the recession. Also in the article, wine traders are dumping their inventories when strapped for cash, and people are gobbling up the steals. Does the recession change the way we see and consume alcohol on a cultural level, or is this just a pragmatic shift? My guess is on the former. Look for escapist boozing up to be featured more in popular culture.

Of course, as a recession brings about great change, it also brings great opportunity. In fact, some brands, especially lower end brands, welcome the downturn, because it offers them a chance to get ahead. Who knows, maybe we’ll even see a hipster or two in Wal-Mart? Karl Long states that the recession will bring forth an age of frugality, which could present a real opportunity for people-centered design. Also, check out his list of socio-economical shifts he predicts, and think about the cultural changes they could usher in.

I thought I’d follow up on an earlier post a bit. In it I argued that strong brands act like statesmen, not populists in that they show a conviction and don’t cater to the people’s every impulse or wish. That’s what makes them respected and iconic, where as the populist is always doomed to fizzle away and not leave a permanent mark in culture.

I talk frequently with my cousin (who is studying and lecturing on philosophy) on a variety of topics, and one topic we frequent heavily is politics. We ended up debating the virtues and follies of democracy in that it sometimes fails to deliver us the optimal result in decision making. I found that there were again powerful parables between politics and branding, especially the metaphor I had used earlier about statesmen and populists.

I think I can draw from the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau to back my claim (modest, aren’t I?). He argued that there’s a disconnect between volonte de tous (the combined “wants” of the populace) and volonte generale (the “general will, roughly translated). To my understanding, Rousseau never directly stated as much, but he strongly hinted the he felt that the people don’t always know what’s good for them, and the combined “will” of their wants is not better than the “general will”.

So in other words, it’s not about listening to the people and doing their exact bidding, it’s about listening to them and understanding them deeply, a more patient and harder approach.

Caught an interesting piece of news from Guy Kawasaki’s Twitter feed. Apparently, scientists have proved that eternal love can exist in marriages. Considering the times, I’d say that’s a rather surprising story.

Marriage and family are two of the old societal institutions that has gone a drastic during the past 60 years or so. In the old days getting married meant you stayed together for life. Some (usually older people) cry out that the the moral fiber of our societies have decayed to the point where marriage has become a meaningless institution. What used to be “happily ever after” is now “there’s a 50-50 chance you’ll be still together in 15 years”.

The new face of marriage.

Naturally, the rise in divorces isn’t due to a societal decay or a newly found lack of morals, but a change in culture. In the old days, divorce was a major faux pas and many (especially women) had no way out of loveless marriages. You could say that marriage statistics were skewed because most who wanted out of their marriages had no opportunity to do so. In effect, a movement towards a more liberal and equal society has freed men and especially women from the stigma of being an old maid or a divorcée (Sex and the City was basically built around these cultural issues). Also, women entering the workforce has meant that they are no longer dependent on men financially, so getting divorced isn’t the financial risk it once was.

Open any women’s magazine and you’ll see that articles about “finding the right one” are not about bagging a good providing husband anymore, but rather finding a man who “rocks your world”. The financial security (and lack of social stigma) women enjoy now has also changed the balance of power in dating and sex. Because of these changes in culture and society, women now have a better bargaining position when it comes to choosing a partner (especially sexual). Some have even speculated that this is one (not THE, but one) driver in why men have better wages than women: men have to up their social standing in order to attract a mate (read the comments in this Finnish blog for more).

As divorces have become more common it has had a big effect on the cultural myths and beliefs that surround marriage. The rise in prenuptial agreements is a statistical sign of this. But on the positive side, couples that manage to keep their marriage healthy are now celebrated and admired, and couples will go on second honeymoons after 20 years together etc.

What I think goes a bit counter to the change of the marriage institution, though, is the ballooning of marriage ceremonies into huge consumption orgies. Maybe it is because even though the facts speak for themselves and most marriages do not last, the myth of an eternal love is now more important than ever for couples. It is possible that our cultural myths about marriage and love haven’t adapted yet to the changes in society, or that these myths are so important to us that we believe in them even harder. Maybe that’s why people are willing to blow thousands and thousands of dollars into huge wedding ceremonies. The bigger the wedding, the happier the marriage, right?

We’ll, as stated in the news piece at the top of this post, eternal love is attainable, so you might as well try.

Check out the blog ethos from Culturemaking that I just discovered from Grant McCracken’s blogroll:

1. Everything is cultural (nothing can step outside of cultural representation)

2. Culture is the richest repository of innovation and brand development ideas

3. Inspiration exists in everything (cf. Paul Smith)

4. Branding is an art (but science can help)

5. Strategy cannot be divorced from execution (overlook design at your peril)

6. Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers (cf. HL Mencken)

7. Diversity and inconsistency keeps life interesting for people (thus everything about this blog is subject to change)

Couldn’t have said it better myself. Too bad the blog seems inactive now, he seems very much the kindred spirit.