Branding, Culture, Politics, and Everything in Between

Nice post by Living Brands. I especially liked his (post author John Howard) list on what it means to be iconic:

1. The truly iconic affects us whether we like it are not, unlocking instinctive memories, emotions and beliefs
2. The image of the truly iconic is more important than, even transcending, the actual reality of its subject
3. The truly iconic subject should be understandable via visual shorthand.
4. The truly iconic is immediately recognisable, the visual equivalent of an unmistakable catchphrase

Read the whole post, it’s very insightful. I really hope that “iconic” doesn’t join the ranks of “authentic” and “green” as terms totally diluted by over use and misuse – especially in a branding.

A small remark though on the images used at the end of the post. “Iconic” in terms of branding doesn’t mean that a brand should necessarily leech on MORE iconic visual shorthand, for example (like the examples used in the post), a brand should look to become an icon in itself, like a VW Beetle or a bottle of Coke.

I had a slight backlog on my TED videocasts and I went through a few them today. One of the videos I watched was Joseph Pine’s 2004 TED talk. This was before he had published the book Authenticity with Jim Gilmore, but this presentation is pretty much on the same stuff that’s being talked about in the book.

The book is essentially about authenticity becoming our (the consumers) primary buying sensitivity. First goods, then services, and now even experiences have become commoditized, so marketers have no choice but to offer authentic experiences. Or at least sell their experiences as more authentic as the competitors’. I had blogged about the book when it came out and I was going to revisit the subject at some point, but I never got around to it. But this is a good reason as any to revisit the subject.

One of the main tenets that stuck with me with the book was this little 2×2 diagram that Pine also had in his TED talk. It’s a screencap, so apologies for the quality.

The diagram has two axis: “it is what it says it is” and “it is true to itself”. What they mean is best illustrated via examples. The “Fake Fake” is rather self-explanatory, but for “Real Fake” Pine says that a tour at Universal Studios is a good example of this: it is real and it is what it says it is (being in Hollywood and a real studio), but it’s fake in the sense that it’s not really “true” to Hollywood because it offers a view behind the scenes, removing the veil of mystery behind Hollywood films. With “Fake Real” Pine says that Disneyworld is the perfect example: it’s not what it says it is – “It’s not a magic kingdom”, as Pine says – but it’s wonderfully true to itself in the sense that the experience is so wonderfully immersive and passionate, that it really captures the feeling of “magic kingdom”.

Which brings us to “Real Real”. When I was watching the TED talk it hit me that for cultural brands, of course, the goal is to embody both categories of “real”: they are both what they say they are and they are true to their selves. The “Real Real” distinction is a new way to conceptualize and complement Douglas Holt’s distinctions of brand literacy and brand fidelity.

Holt says that brand’s should demonstrate an understanding of its supporting demographic’s “populist world” and its custom’s and idioms (literacy). The brand should also understand its place in this populist world and play to it (like Harley does to biker culture and Apple to the creative industries). This is where the “it is what it says it is” comes to play: a brand must neither overstate nor deny its place in the populist world. Examples of brands trying to claim a stake in a subculture and failing are too numerous to list (especially brands trying to ride the hip hop craze in the late 90s), but the shoe brand Timberland tried to do the opposite, it tried to deny its place as a hip hop icon and suffered for it. As for brand fidelity, Holt argues that brands should honor their roots and sacrifice pandering to the masses by thinking populist world first. I think this can be seen as “staying true to itself” in many ways.

In short: brands should first understand what they are and what they mean to a given populist world (build brand literacy) so that they can “be what they say they are”. If no such links to relevant subcultures exist, then a brand should look to build and nurture meanings that have the potential to become such connections. Once the brand understands itself and its place, it should look to nurture this connection (show brand fidelity/be true to itself) and not alienate its core constituency as the brand grows in popularity.

Easier said than done, though.

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.

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.

I ran into Mikko in a bar here in Helsinki. We got into talking about the usual stuff: marketing, Finland, entrepreneurship etc. He then asked me about my thesis and its theories and why I use big American brands mostly as my examples. He said that American brands (or rather, American consumer tastes) might not translate or might be a hard “sell” for Finnish businesses.

It’s a fair point. The only small brand I’ve featured in this blog was Gym Jones and the only Finnish brand has been Nokia. But the thing is, I don’t think Finland has that many brands that could qualify as iconic brands, at least in the sense of portraying an identity myth. One reason is the size of our market and our relatively late industrialization, but another reason is that we’ve been notoriously lagging in the grand art of marketing. The only brands I could think of when chatting with Mikko were Marimekko, Iittala and maybe Ivana Helsinki, and with each of them I have a hard time conceptualizing an identity myth that could be clearly identifiable. Marimekko probably comes closest with its timeless and unwavering design (as Mikko said), but as said, that in itself doesn’t make for an identity myth yet.

An iconic brand?

However, when I got home I remembered a great example of cultural branding in Finland that my friend Viola had in her master’s thesis. It’s the case of Karjala (Karelia), a Finnish beer brand. As this (Finnish) Wikipedia page shows, Karjala’s sales were modest in the 1960s until the Soviet ambassador Andrei Kovaljov stated that its nationalistic imagery and name were insulting to the USSR. This created a nationalistic movement that boosted the beer’s sales immensely. Karjala got swooped up into the national dialogue and became a key and credible prop in culture, although not by its own doing (which might often be even for the better). People even had a saying in those days: “Let’s bring Karelia back, even though it’s one bottle at a time!”

Fast forward to 1994 and the beer brand decided to start sponsoring the Finnish national hockey team, and when the team won the hockey gold medal a year later the brand saw significant increases in its sales. Karjala had dipped into its heritage of nationalistic pride and gotten lucky, yet again, with circumstances that were out of its control. One could argue that any beer brand could have done the same, but I feel that the key issue here was Karjala’s nationalistic heritage, that had lived on since the 1960′s onwards. Another brand might’ve seen a small increase in sales, but Karjala saw massive gains thanks to their place in Finnish culture. It goes without saying though, that Karjala should look to reinvent its myth, I doubt that the nationalistic angle from the 90s is still resonant with culture, but that’s a whole other issue.

Karjala continues to leverage its place in Finnish culture

I also somewhat disagreed with Mikko that American culture and European culture (and Finnish culture for that matter) are so different that you can’t necessarily take from American cases examples and try to apply them here. It’s true that nearly all of Douglas Holt’s work is based in America, and I’m sure that it gives the theories a distinctive flair. But popular culture has been converging for a long time now, and the Internet has only accelerated this trend. We same a lot of the same memes, anecdotes and stories with our American counterparts. And as Joseph Campbell has shown with his work, idenitity myth as are universally identifiable. I’m sure Finland has its own versions to, for example, the American “man of action” myth, one example that immediately springs to mind is Koskela, the mythic character from Väinö Linna’s books.

From the article (in Finnish, sorry):

Yläsen mielestä Yhdysvallat varsinkin sellaisena, miksi Hollywood sen klassisella kaudella kuvasi, oli Suomen kaltainen, herroja kunnioittamaton raivaajakansa, joka oli oppinut tulemaan toimeen omin avuin.

“Sä et tyrkytä apua, koska kaikilla on samat edellytykset, kaikki pärjäävät itse.”

So it seems that Finnish and American culture might have more in common than previously thought.

It’s also very important to note that in many ways America could be seen as a testing ground for branding, because their consumer culture is so much more saturated in terms of choice and amount of advertising compared to us. I’d also argue that this leads to a higher “consumer literacy level”, as I had argued in my thesis. So in effect, America consumer culture is paving the way for European brands.

I’ve been thinking about the perfect metaphor how brands should currently be seen, and I think the Hollywood actor metaphor is the best I can come up with.

It has to do with typecasting. Certain actors get certain roles over and over again, which has its advantages and disadvantages. When Sylvester Stallone was doing action movies with over the top macho performances, he could price himself very highly because such movies (or rather, such role models) were in high demand, but as the cultural demand for tough male role models dried off in the 1990s’, he had a hard time reinventing himself. Only recently has he been able to make his return as the macho male, only because our culture has shifted in such a way that conservative values and the “man of action” (as Douglas Holt calls it) is in high demand again.

Some actors are able to avoid typecasting and can credibly play a multitude of characters. Philip Seymour Hoffman is one, but even he had to struggle after he made it big in Happiness and Magnolia, he was close to being typecast as a sort of interesting loser. His character was modified for Magnolia so it was more in line with his character in Happiness. Your previous movies determine what kind of roles are offered in the future (and what people expect from you), and I guess you’re as interesting as your latest film.

Brands are similar to actors in this sense. Microsoft is hopelessly typecast. So is Apple, although right now they are benefiting from this massively. But what most people (especially Apple fanatics) don’t seem to realize that their myth (synonym for typecast) may change in relevance, as well as where this kind of myth has demand.

Grant McCracken has written about the parallels of branding and Hollywood, or rather how branding should conducted, in his blog extensively. This post particularly hit the nail in the head in arguing that companies should approach marketing opportunities with the same agility as movie studios: create hot teams around emerging cultural topics, and deliver a product.

I’m now playing around with the idea as to how brand managers should see their jobs as “agents” for their brands. Is it better to resist your brand be typecast by branching out to different roles (in emotional branding this would be called “adding layers to the brand’s extended identity) or rather embrace it and just find the right roles for your brand’s myth? Is the best possible brand a Daniel Day Lewis or a Tom Cruise (pre going insane)? Should an agent be representing many brands and how the brands’ relationships should mesh?

It’s a work in progress.

click to download PDF

I uploaded my Master’s Thesis, called A CONCEPT ANALYSIS ON MODERN BRANDING – Defining Key Concepts in Mind-Share, Emotional, Viral, and Cultural Branding, to my server. It’s 124 pages all in all, and it received the grade 80/100 from the Helsinki School of Economics’ marketing department (read: a good grade).

Why should you read the thesis? Well…

• if you think brand managers can totally control their brands, then you need to read this thesis
• if you think consumers are in total control of brands, then you need to read this thesis
• if you want to know what should you take into account when your brand matures and why, then you need to read this thesis
• if you want to understand why advertising constantly keeps losing its power and what you can do about it, then you need to read this thesis
• if you want to know why people driven brands seem to succeed where as more resource-rich and bigger brands are faltering, then you need to read this thesis
• if you’re want to know why forgetting about making money for a while might be the best business decision you’ll ever make, then you need to read this thesis
• if you want to know what Viral Branding REALLY means, and what it means for your business, then you need to read this thesis
• and above all, if you think that a “brand” is just “value added to a product”, then you DEFINITELY need to read this thesis

And as a teaser, here is the main finding of my thesis, communicated as shortly as I possibly can in visual format:

Enjoy, and please give feedback and challenge my ideas, if you dare!