Branding, Culture, Politics, and Everything in Between

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.

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.

Mashable outlines the problems Facebook has on monetizing its user base. It’s a long read, but the part they quoted from the New York Times struck me:

“Advertisers distract users; users ignore advertisers; advertisers distract better; users ignore better.”

This is one of the main problems I found with advertising in my master’s thesis. Advertisers are in an arms both against other advertisers and against consumers. All new advertising innovations (new media to advertise in, persuasion tactics etc.) are quickly copied by rival advertisers and they lose their effectiveness quite fast. And on the consumer front, as time goes by consumers become increasingly advertising savvy and more likely to ignore or “see past” advertising (as outlined in the NYT article).

I guess this is and always will be the advertiser’s problem; how to deal with constantly declining returns on advertising. Some brands choose to just out-spend the competition, hoping for first mover advantages in new marketing tactics by hiring the advertising talent du jour. Some brands are more responsive and consumer-centric, and move their focus away from practices to which consumers are no longer responding.

To me, the best way address this problem is not to concentrate on the medium, but rather on the message. Sure, marketing tactics are important, but in this day and age it’s becoming more clear that a message worth spreading within the consumer base is more vital than the right advertising channels. Or rather, as they ask in the Mashable article, “why consumers click?”.

I had touched on this subject in a previous post where I argued against letting “the mob” take over the brand too much because the brand will become rudderless and a subject for groupthink, which I felt was a death-knell for a brand. I wrote that “When people are really fanatical about a brand, they will seek to take ownership of it. They see themselves as the only “worthy” chroniclers of the brand and its meaning.”

This subject has been rattling in my brain for over a year now, dating all the way to this post by David Armano. In it, he asks:

If brands let their communities define them—are they strong brands in the first place? The answer is yes. My voice is my voice. It will not change—I am who I am. But my thoughts and actions can be influenced by what you say and do. Are brands willing to do the same? Does this make them weak or strong?

I see myself as sort of centrist on this matter, but leaning slightly to the “community defined brands are weak” side, but with certain reservations. Given that I’ve written about brand meaning and its evolution in this blog a great deal, it would be quite implausible for me to argue that communities don’t define brands – even strong ones. Again, this is not an argument that brands shouldn’t reach out to consumers on Twitter or anything, quite the contrary. But brand managers would do well to keep their heads cool and not go overboard with reaching out.

Granted, a community-defined brand will be stronger than any mind-share branded brand that doles stale and unimaginative advertising and doesn’t make any effort to connect with its audience. That’s a given. But what I do feel is that really strong brands should and do take initiative in shaping the conversation around their brand. I’d even argue that the strongest of all brands aren’t afraid to challenge their communities and their perceptions – and they do so successfully. And this brings us to the inspiration to this post, the perfect metaphor I finally came up with for this kind of behavior: A strong brand acts like a statesman, but a weak brand acts like populist.

A statesman isn’t afraid to tell the people what they need to hear, to step above daily politics and do what’s “right”. The populist will say whatever is needed to please the public, often saying multiple things to different constituencies. The statesman is often polarizing, but respected nonetheless and can sometimes rise to become a symbol to a cause (like an iconic brand). The populist, on the other hand, in his attempt to be something for everybody, eventually stands for nothing. And above all, a statesman makes a mark in history, whereas a populist is a shooting star.

“If there is anyone out there who doubts that America is a place where anything is possible, who still wonders if the dream of our founders is alive in our time, who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer.”

Those are the words with which Barack Obama declared himself as the next president of the United States. Truly a historic day and one that will do a lot of good not only for Americans, but the world-at-large. But aside from politics, I have another interest in the subject of Obama’s election.

Grant already touched upon this subject briefly, saying that either candidate winning would have effects on culture and commerce alike. Certainly, given how president-centric the US political structure is made to be, whoever is sitting in the White House will have an enormous influence on people’s daily life and perception of self. It’s my perception that for Americans the “idea” of America has more of an effect on the self than in most countries: the idea of the self-made man, the belief in democracy, America’s manifest destiny as the leader of the free world etc.

All these core American beliefs have been toiling in crisis pretty much from the start of George W. Bush’s presidency – especially for liberal Americans who happen to populate the majority of America’s biggest cities. I believe the Iraq war and John Kerry’s unlikely and crushing defeat in the 2004 election had left many liberals disillusioned and disappointed in America. As Douglas Holt points out in “How Brands Becom Icons”, one of the biggest drivers for consumption of identity products is how people aspire to meet a given culture’s or society’s identity models or “myths”, as Holt puts it. When there’s a disconnect between your own life and what you perceive your immediate culture expecting from you, this is when the tension and anxiety will create the most opportunities for brands and other cultural products (especially movies and music) to soothe these anxieties.

If we go back 30 years, we’ll find one of the most classic examples of a cultural product soothing national anxieties. As George Lucas himself put it: Star Wars was “really about the Vietnam War”. America had lost a big chunk of its belief in itself as the hero of the world after what conspired in Vietnam. In large part this was because this was the first fully televised war, people got to see the brutality of war in its fullness. The nation was badly divided when the war was over (as Obama said, even worse than it is now because of the Iraq war) but Star Wars, while it didn’t totally heal the American spiritual wound left by Vietnam, gave America the permission to believe in heroism and American ideals again. I’m sure the movie would have been a colossal success even without Vietnam, but it would have never found this kind of cultural resonance on its own. Similarly, I think Obama would have found followers and support on his own, but his message and persona hit a cultural key that really resonated. A lot of people say that without the financial crisis Obama wouldn’t have won. I say without the “crisis of democracy” (as Al Gore put it), a transformational figure like Obama wouldn’t have even been in the running.

I have some theories of how consumption and culture was shaped during the Bush years. I for one think that the DYI consumer movement was in part fueled by a sense of distrust and cynicism towards the establishment and any authority – especially by liberals in America. The Bush years have provided academics with a very interesting historical era to mine; not only politically but also culturally and commercially. I’m sure we will be reading about these findings a lot in the near future, but right now I just know that marketers shouldn’t neglect this newly found trust in old American ideals. It will be interesting to see which (big) companies will capture this new zeitgeist first, and which ones will do it best, not by just playing lip service to “change”.

I created a draft for this post over a week ago but I thought I’d wait a while to wait for enough second hand opinions to emerge on Martin Lindstrom’s new book Buyology (link to Neuromarketing.com’s take on the book) before I’d post my impression on it. I haven’t read the book (I might in the future) and I wasn’t comfortable with the idea of giving my opinion on it just based on a few reviews and the book’s sleeve text. But it’s been featured in Neuromarketing enough times that I think I know what the book is about and what its main strengths and weaknesses are. Here’s a consolidated list of reviews on it

The book seems to be getting mixed reviews: academics dismiss it and criticize it (I’d guess a bit unfairly too, since Lindstrom himself is not an academic but a, gasp, popular writer), magazines and blogs handle it with more praise and they seem to be buying into the hype. It has always been my impression that Lindstrom is a very good salesman (hell, you have to be if you get to promote your book on the Today Show), in that he knows the topic du jour and is not ashamed to ride the wave: in early 2000 he was hyping sensorial branding (his book “Brand SENSE” is bible of sorts for many advocates of Emotional Branding) and now he has turned his attention to neuromarketing, which some see as the next Holy Grail of marketing. So in short, it seems like one of those books that create a lot of buzz but eventually fail to make a lasting impact or change the field of marketing. We’ll see how my prediction fares in the long run.

But back to why wanted to write about Buyology in the first place. When the book came out, this was the first paragraph from Lindstrom’s newsletter:

It is probably one of the most controversial scientific findings of 2008. In his $7 million neuroscience-based research study, Lindstrom has spent over four years peering into the minds of 2,000 consumers across five countries to discover if there’s a parallel between brands and religion. Without disclosing too much (the findings will be published on October 20th), we can reveal that brands indeed activate the same areas in the brain as religion. By analyzing brands like Harley Davidson, Apple, Guinness and hundreds of other commercial icons, Lindstrom discovered that we are hardwired to believe in some brands. Lindstrom went further, interviewing religious leaders from across faiths and cultures. He discovered that the ingredients that create powerful religions may also be invaluable for branding of the future.

I can’t see how this is news to anybody who has been studying marketing beyond reading a few books by Seth Godin. Branding has become more and more about managing meaning, and religion is to a lot of people the ultimate path of seeking meaning, so it’s not hard to see parallels between the two. Jesus Christ is as much a cultural icon as is a bottle of Coke or a Harley Davidson. Also, people have valued the same kind of behavior in brands and religion: purity of intentions and non-profiteering motifs.

I’ve posted this link before, but Douglas Holt’s “Why do brands cause trouble?” (PDF) is an absolute must read for any marketer. In it, Holt outlines the historical change that has undertaken the world of branding from “cultural engineering” (from a time when people actually trusted brands somewhat) to the post postmodern paradigm where the best brands get a strong following by appearing “disinterested” in making money, and are more mission and meaning driven. In later works Holt has detailed what kind of missions and meanings are appealing to people through brands like Harley-Davidson, Apple etc. (like Lindstrom did above), and I’ve blogged about the subject here many times, but let’s not get into that. As for religion, it’s fairly obvious that the same kind of criticism that brands receive about profiteering and purity of intentions would be devastating to any church. For example, the church of Scientology is vilified for being nothing more than a money-making scheme, and people oppose it with a passion. People have a need to believe in something, but people also absolutely love to expose somebody as a false prophet. Hey, doesn’t the word “sellout” actually originate from what Judas did to Jesus (anyone care to fact check)?

I think by claiming this revelation of brands being similar to religion to be so “shocking”, Lindstrom had failed to do what I wrote in my previous post that brand thinkers need to drill deeper to uncover the “why” of a phenomenon. If Lindstrom had drilled deeper, he would have realized that brands and religion both are about meaning, and the similarities in neurology they create shouldn’t have come as a shock (a cynic might argue that this “shock” is feigned to create interest in the book). Of course, I’m not arguing that brands can be as strong as religious movements (and I doubt that Lindstrom isn’t arguing either), but I do think that brands and religion fit on the same scale (along with other cultural products, such as books and films) where religion sits a the top and everything else comes after it.

Helsingin Sanomat, the leading Finnish daily newspaper just recently had a voting for the ideal postcard for Helsinki. The results were published today (or very recently, anyway).

This came out on top with a rather hefty percentage of the total votes (33.8%):

Now, I’m not going to argue taste and say that the one I voted for was any better. But it’s pretty safe to say that the winner is and was the safe choice. The vanilla of postcards.

I guess most people like bland, they don’t like the ordinary challenged in any way. The other postcards did not look like postcards, so they didn’t get the votes. But where they lacked in postcard-likeness, they made up for in originality. And in my opinion, they told a better story about Helsinki than the winner. Then again, a cynic might say that the blandness is spot on in its truthfulness. Maybe the majority of the people really are just that, bland?