Branding, Culture, Politics, and Everything in Between

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 was going to blog about this sooner, but I sort of gave up on the idea because A) the idea wasn’t mine, and I wanted to be original, and B) the hype behind Wall-E had sort of died down. But today I got an excuse to revisit the topic via Apple’s launch of two new laptop computers.

Teemu pointed out to me what he had noticed, that Apple had a considerable presence in Wall-E, Pixar’s latest masterpiece. Wall-E even boots up with the similar sound that a Mac does, which was very tongue in cheek. This is of course partially due to the fact that Steve Jobs used to work at Pixar, and the two companies enjoy a very close relationship even today. But what Teemu had noticed, that Apple’s presence in Wall-E had elements of meaning management in it. He suggested that I blog about it, because this subject is kinda up my alley. Needless to say, I was gutted that I hadn’t noticed it myself. But Teemu’s right, there’s a lot of meaning Apple is trying to mine in Wall-E.

I won’t go into detail about the movie’s plot, but let’s just say it’s heavily centered on green values, in a rather pessimistic way. Of course, Apple or Macintosh is never mentioned directly in the movie, but Apple’s presence is more about the small things: Apple’s familiar design language in Eve, the other robot, using the Apple chime when Wall-E boots up. But what I thought was the most obvious, and most meaningful thing about Apple, was this:

In the photo you will see that green leaf in Eve’s, uh, body. That leaf was blinking as Eve had gone in to sleep mode of sorts. The blinking was identical to how a Mac’s LED flashes in sleep mode, so it couldn’t have been a coincidence. But what I think is even less of a coincidence, is the green leaf in it. Apple has caught a lot of flack for the environmental unfriendliness of their products. Greenpeace had their prominent Green my Apple campaign. Apple has also scored low marks in Greenpeace’s guide to green electronics (guess which company ranks #1?), so they have had their work cut out for them.

I thought the subtly done meaning management in Wall-E could have been seen as a sign that Apple is aiming for a new, greener strategy. A cynic might say that everybody is these days, but the the launch of the new Macbook today showed that the company is taking green very seriously. Watch the presentation video, and you’ll see how much effort and emphasis they’ve put on the green aspects of the computer. It’s quite a huge step.

But all in all, was the meaning management effective? Or was it even intentional, or at least planned on a high level? Or was it just a gag that the guys at Pixar had done, to show their affection to Apple? We won’t know unless somebody comes forth and says it. But for now it’s a very clever way of doing brand placement in a movie. Using only the design elements of Apple products and not the company logo would make Martin Lindstrom proud.

UPDATE: Treehugger says that the new Mac is indeed very, very green (via PSFK). Great news. I think Apple really understands the concerns of their core demographic: they tend to be left leaning, young and urban, and not being a green company is against what Apple stands for, in terms of lifestyle.

But in other news, Wired reports that analysts say that the new Macbooks are too pricy to compete. The analysts cite the downturn in the economy is the main driver. I sort of disagree. Are they going to feel a pinch in sales? Sure. But I doubt that slashing prices was going to help their bottom line anyway, especially for an iconic brand like Apple.

If you live in Helsinki and have NOT been hiding under a rock the past few months or so, you most likely have heard of Carrotmob finding its way here. In short: Carrotmob is basically a group of people negotiating a deal with any kind of business to pledge to allocate a certain amount of money to green initiatives from the extra sales generated by Carrotmobbers “rushing” the store. The rationale is that firms will do anything for money, so let’s use this as a positive force to make business more green. Hence the term Carrotmob; it’s more carrot than stick. Here in Helsinki Carrotmob was initiated by Roope Mokka of Demos Helsinki fame.

The first Finnish Carrotmobbing event was held successfully in a bar called Juttutupa (“Chatter Lodge”, freely translated) this weekend. The event grossed over 6000€ in extra profits for the participating bar, and half of that will go to investments to make the bar more energy friendly. All in all, the first Carrotmob was a resounding success.

What I think has been missing from all the articles on Carrotmob is the WHY, as in why this kinds of things appeal to people. In a very short time, Carrotmob Helsinki’s Facebook group has attracted nearly 5000 members, a remarkable feat. But what drives people to initiatives like this?

Every now and then you will read politicians cry out that young people are no longer interested in politics (as it’s defined) in Finland and that this is a “crisis” of epic proportions. Just today Finland’s main newspaper Helsingin Sanomat reported that “in 2030 under 50% of people will vote in county elections”. Not only is that an asinine prediction to make 12 years in advance (what did they do, draw a regression line from the current voting numbers? did these people also predict the rise of 1960s radicalism in the mellow 1950s?), but also so missing the point. What most politicians and other pundits fail to realize, that it’s the definition of politics that’s in crisis, not the youth.

Being politically active means more than just getting of the couch every two years to drop a piece paper into a ballot box. I think it’s astounding that the Baby Boomers, who themselves were so rebellious and active in shaping their way of doing politics (especially in universities), fail to see that younger generations want to find their own way of political activism – just like the Baby Boomers back in their time. Why should they get to be rebellious and daring in politics, where as “we” have to follow the path they laid out for us? Today’s youth engage in politics via graffiti, squatting abandoned houses, buying ethical products and donating to organizations like Amnesty International or Greenpeace, and spreading “causes” on Facebook. Members of Generation Y, the Internet generation, see the world’s problems as global, and the three major Finnish parties can’t provide credible answers in this regard. Also, special interests and consensus politics don’t really appeal to young people, who obsess over authenticity and idealism.

Of course, the powers that be are also doing a great job of alienating young people on issues they DO care about in modern politics. Tommi Uschanov had a great accord in his provocative book “What’s wrong with the Left?” (In Finnish) how a total lack of understanding and involvement in copyright and proposed internet censorship legislation (I won’t go into details here but let’s just say that it has been rather awful) left many young people feeling even more disconnected and outright disregarded in preparation of the laws. Also, keep in mind that Baby Boomers are by far the biggest generational segment in Finland and they are grossly over-represented in parliament, so it’s no wonder topics that concern young people don’t pop up too often.

All of this of course leads to a fair amount of tension and cultural fodder for counterculture. The youth have always rebelled against the establishment, but the way the establishment has failed to understand how young people are reshaping the way politics are made and disregarded the young in issues important to them has only made this tension stronger. This is where initiatives like Carrotmob strike a major nerve: they don’t have ANYTHING to do with party politics, they are authentic and accessible.

Of course, pretty much immediately after the first even was over the murmurs started that the it wasn’t “done right” (the participating restaurant used the money on new coolers, does that count as green?) or that the event got too much hype. Like I said, it’s damn hard to do politics with a group of people that are obsessed with authenticity.

I must admit, I’m not personally a fan of the idea of saving the world through consuming MORE, which in many ways this is. But I guess Carrotmob does a lot more good than harm.

If any ad has been dissected and talked about more the past year than this ad, I’d like to know what it is. Much has been written about Crispin landing the unenviable yet so intriguing task of rebranding Microsoft, and after the Microsoft Mojave campaign, what you see above is finally the first TV-spot.

The casting of Jerry Seinfeld seems very un-Crispin when you first think about it. Hiring a superstar, and a fading one at that (like Antti said in this Jaiku thread “Jerry belongs to the 90s”) seems like a go-to move from the mind-share branding playbook. But while Seinfed (both persona and TV-show character) is not as current or “hip”, he still packs a lot of cultural meaning. Also, how they’ve scripted the ad and treated Jerry as a character is what makes the choice intriguing.

Grant McCracken had a fairly comprehensive rundown of the ad and its meaning. Small excerpt:

The meaning mechanics of the ad are wonderful: Jerry’s shoes squeak like a cartoon character. A store called Shoe Circus. A family gathered outside the store window in solemn and learned reverence for shoes within. The meaningful glance between Jerry and Bill that makes no sense. Seinfeld’s lunatic advice that Bill try wearing his clothes in the shower. The starring role give churros. The idea that anyone would want to earn points in a store like this, especially when the card calls them a “shoe circus clown club member.” The idea that computers could ever be “moist,” “chewy,” and edible. The idea that Jerry suspected this “all along.”

As far as contemporary advertising goes, this ad is indeed rich with nuances and meanings (I’m especially intrigued by the meaningful glance and the knowing smile Jerry and Bill share) that speak to you more than a traditional ad would. I wrote in my master’s thesis that as people’s media-savviness grows, it opens new opportunities for storytelling because people understand the medium better and you don’t need to be so explicit in your selling. However, this media-savviness (combined with market saturation and clutter) also makes people more resentful of ads that they feel are too pushy, “selling” and simply insulting of their intelligence as consumers. And given that the brand in question is Microsoft, the pushiest and most profiteering brand in its industry, I can definitely see why Crispin went for a more “un-selling” approach.

I wrote in the comments of Grant’s post that I think they will be going back to the “run tight” phrase they threw around a few times in the ad. First when Jerry said it, and when the hispanics outside the shop said it. This might be just a clever and indirect way of introducing the new benefit or value proposition. It’ll be interesting to see if/how they revisit the phrase in future spots. I think these ad spots are not meant to be examined individually, they work as one long commercial, sort of how the Cloverfield ad campaign was all part of the experience, almost like a treasure hunt. I guess some parallels to “Lost” work here, too. Like somebody posted in the comments on Grant’s blog, it’s too early to tell if this is a good campaign or not.

But I’m definitely a fan, if not for the sheer volume of discussion the ad has generated.

UPDATE: Here is the second spot, the longer version.

On one hand, McCain’s decision to pick Sarah Palin as his vice president candidate was a genius marketing move. The Obama camp was telling a story about political change, and how John McCain would bring more of the same tried politics. People – especially in the Obama camp – were expecting McCain to pick a Mitt Romney or a Mike Huckabee for VP, and that would have fit the story of “more of the same”.

But McCain took that punchline away with one swift stroke. He changed the story.

For the next few days, people will concentrate less on “more of the same” but more on “bold choice”. If the story you’re telling isn’t working, tell a new story. And this is what makes this choice of VP a great marketing move. Kinda like running a great AD that gets a lot of buzz.

But the question is, where does the story go from here? Meaning what happens when the ad has run its course and people get to actually see the product. This is where this story turns into a potential marketing disaster. As some pundits have already noted, she’s unknown, woefully unqualified and a total mismatch for liberal Hillary voters, the voters she was presumably going to fetch. She also puts a damper on any accusations about Obama’s inexperience, the “other” story the republicans had going.

She’s a bold and very risky choice, but then again, a safe choice would have been playing right to the hands of the Obama camp.

We’ll see how the story goes from here.

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?

Two newspieces in today’s Kauppalehti that caught my eye and got me thinking:

Kauppalehti: Hesburger’s turnout twice that of McDonald’s, more profitable too
Kauppalehti: PlayStation 2 game overall sales trump next gen consoles

The first one relates to me living in Helsinki. In Helsinki, there’s a general dislike towards Hesburger because of their campy advertising and I guess some people in Helsinki still haven’t forgiven them for buying Carrols, a Helsinki-based hamburger brand. But as the number show, Hesburger is reining supreme in the fast food world in Finland. It’s sales are mostly driven by the populace outside of Helsinki – especially through its partnership with gas stations. But you’d never guess it by walking in downtown Helsinki. There are more McDonald’s restaurants (which are generally more populated) and McDonald’s advertising is more prominent everywhere. But the numbers tell a different truth about the balance of power between the two brands.

The other one is a reminder to look beyond newness and hype. The next gen gaming consoles (Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii) get all the media attention, but the reality is that the “ancient” PS2 is still the top seller in Finland. Of course, given the choice I guess anybody would rather be the brand manager for PS3 than PS2, but unless you see the product’s life cycle all the way through, you’re not going be profitable.

Reality can be quite humbling sometimes.

As I already stated in a previous post, I was in Rome for short vacation. Great weather, good food and most of the time I enjoyed the attractions. St. Peter’s church was awesome and uncrowded, the Sistine Chapel and the Colosseum on the other hand were way too crowded for me to enjoy. But the more time I spent in Rome the more it started to feel like exactly the same.

Nowhere was this more apparent than in the restaurants. Whenever we stopped in front of a restaurant to check out the menu, it was nearly identical to the one next to it. Practically all restaurants in Rome had the same pastas (arrabiata, pomodoro etc.) and pizzas (margherita, quattro formaggi etc.) on their menus. After three nights of dining out, I was more than ready to try something different – anything but Italian.

The reason for this phenomenon is obvious: Rome attracts hundreds of thousands of tourists every year (especially American, as I observed), and they expect a certain “authentic Italian experience”. The trouble is, what tourists perceive as authentic or Italian is often quite clichéd and limited, because they know so little of Italy beforehand. That’s why restaurants trim their menus to match the tourists’ expectations.

This leads to a very interesting phenomenon: as all the restaurants race to meet the tourists’ expectations, they become basically identical, cannibalizing each others’ market share and of course, their collective authenticity. I even thought of a name for this phenomenon: involuntary franchising. After just a few meals eating out in Rome became as special as eating at a McDonald’s.

There were more examples, of course. Touring the Colosseum with hundreds of other tourists listening to a dry and unenthusiastic presentation through hand-held speakers felt about as remarkable as a sitcom re-run. The lack of exclusiveness often killed the authentic experience (like I said, I loved St. Peter’s because for some reason it wasn’t very crowded that day).

I wonder if it were be able to tour the Sistine Chapel at night in a group of, say, 10 people at 1000$ per head? THAT would be something to tell home about.