I think my first thoughts on the subject appeared in 2012 – Mean better than average, featuring Cleartrip, who had put a non-customer in place with sarcasm after a polite conversation failed. It took another 5 years for a redux in Feels & Fields in Marketing. The framing was that if the end game was for the brand to be the first choice when a consumer thinks of the category, what would be the strategy in a world of attention scarcity? Using the powers of targeting and personalisation to catch the customer at the right time and place (medium + stage of a funnel) with the right messaging, or having a world view that is so relatable to a kind of customer that the brand becomes entrenched in his/her mind? Or both?
I followed it up with Brand with a worldview, which had examples from the Super Bowl 2017 ads, many of which had an overt or covert political stance. My inference was that we are largely irrational creatures, and absolutely prone to confirmation biases. We’d love our brands to echo our world view… Smart money would be on brands that can use data to glean consumer sentiment beyond domain, and leverage that understanding when forming a world view.
This post takes the thought forward, and I have framed it quite simplistically with 3 aspects – customer, competition, and company. We also have a hot example to embellish the hypothesis – Nike! Tons have been written about its latest adventures, but let’s just overdo it anyway.
Customer: While I have some beef with this post which called the Nike ad “brand purpose at its worst”, it does ask some relevant questions. The most important one being “what does the customer want?” As per the post, he/she just wants better products, and there is very little demand for more philosophy, ideology, or opinions. I beg to differ, as I find it relevant in the customer’s decision making process. And my reason for that is this
When a consumer market is new, distribution wins. As consumer become educated, product wins. When products reach parity, brand wins.
— Jeremy Liew, Partner at Lightspeed (@jeremysliew) May 23, 2017
Even if I keep that aside for a second, there are three kinds of emotions customers would have in this context – love, hate, indifference. To use the Nike example, I am betting that the burning by the second will be compensated by the earning from the first. Nike’s sales have already increased 61% and shares rebounded to a record high. (via) Makes sense because in my view, a brand that takes on a purpose is actually doing benefit laddering – the benefit here for the customer is the association with a brand that echoes their world view. It speaks to their self image and/or gives them social validation. So, “shut up and take my money!” The third set will judge by the product – Nike does a good job of it anyway. On the count that Nike is doing a disservice to the underprivileged by selling them sneakers via the con job fantasy that they should “sacrifice everything” . Well sorry, it’s a brand, and not some mafia that has put a gun to your head! People have a choice, and they should use it responsibly!
Competition: As the same post points out, every other brand is now marching on the path to purpose for the sake of brand differentiation. Nike had to level up. With this polarising move, I’d say that they just made their moat bigger. At the risk of digressing and anthropomorphism, Nike is getting better at what Taleb calls “skin in the game“, which is not just about the incentives, but the more essential aspect: filtering and the facilitation of evolution. The play books of brand and marketing are disappearing as fast as they are made, so one could argue that taking calculated risks is the only strategic option for brand evolution and long term growth.
Company: Rajesh Lalwani has done an excellent job of explaining why Nike needed to do it and were the perfect brand for it, by deconstructing the campaign in the context of the larger brand journey. I am merely adding to it. To do what Nike has done, I think a brand needs to have what I call the integrity of intent. I am not yet sure whether that is interchangeable with authenticity. I see two approaches to integrity of intent, based on what the optimisation is for. The first is an honest “skin in the game” approach to the brand’s self actualisation. The second is to stay true to the brand’s self image. The first is about discovery, the second is a known target, though it might be a shifting one. Either way, the brand is being true to itself – it understands the business aspect, and in its own selfish interest will tend towards doing right by the customer. If it doesn’t, customers will see through it at some point. I can’t say for sure which one of these drives Nike. I can give you a gimmick example though – Revolve and their fat shaming posturing, which is having them sweat it out now!
In summation, I believe that a brand having a worldview is a strategic imperative. Its customers win because they are associated with a brand that echoes their world view and feeds their self image. Happy customers gives the brand a win in business. If you really think about it, Nike isn’t really sacrificing anything. They’re betting, knowing the odds. Smart move for individuals, smart move for a brand too!
Bonus read: Great thread on decision making
P.S. The memes have been hilarious. This is one of my favourites.
3 thoughts on “Brand with a worldview – Part 2”