In a post that I found extremely poignant and true, the Guardian calls it out as The Age of Loneliness. It lists out the structural shifts causing this social collapse. “The war of every man against every man – competition and individualism, in other words – is the religion of our time…What counts is to win. The rest is collateral damage.” Seems we are but slaves of a ‘hedonic treadmill’, in denial.
In earlier posts (The Art of Live In, Emotion as a Service) I’d written on how (IMO) even the micro-unit of society – the family- is ripe for disruption. At both societal and familial levels, I think the related fallout is an increasing lack of compassion and empathy, something that I notice a lot on Twitter, for example. Irony that the more connected we are, the more disconnected we are from each others’ emotions, and what impact our actions/inactions have. But guess who is coming to the rescue? Quite possibly, robots, that care! (1, 2) (more…)
Dove’s immensely viewed ‘Real Beauty’ video has sparked a parody and many debates including how the content would (or would not) help sales. But what it actually reminded me of was a quote attributed to Marty Neumeier (via)
Brand isn’t what you say about your product, it’s what other people say about your product.
A little reminder that the marketer’s best attempts at defining the user’s perceptions have a chance of failing, especially in the era when everyone is a publisher. Sometime back, I’d read a post on Smashing Magazine which argued that the traditional way of brand building – repetition and consistency – applicable in a time when media options were limited, needs to give way to a playful, adaptive brand that is flexible while keeping intact the core principles. (Oreo is one of the better examples here) It defines the brand as an ecosystem of interactions that embraces different platforms, co-creation with customers and proposes a very interesting method to achieve this – apply the concept of ‘minimum viable product‘ to brand design.
On another front, it was heartening to read that at least some feel that venture capital needs to get serious about brand thinking. Though not in so many words, this post is also in alignment with the concept of brand as an ecosystem and gives several good examples of brands earning the trust of users as well as going beyond their products and services in the positioning. This post uses the phrase ‘Clean Slate Brands‘ to describe new, unknown brands who are using better products/services, radical transparency and ‘open operations’ to compete with, and beat more ‘revered’ brands. (follow the link for examples)
But what happens to established brands? How do they redefine themselves to be relevant in this changing scenario? This led me to think about Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. Do you think that the traditional form of brand building and communication focused on the bottom 2 sections – Physiological, Safety? As products and services become more efficient courtesy technological advances, and functionality becomes a given as opposed to a value proposition, should brand design as a science (and brands that have thus far used the traditional method) realign to focus on the top 3 sections – Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self Actualisation? Think about the cola giants – from thirst to happiness (Coke) and Empathy (Pepsi Refresh) is that what they have been doing?
Judging by the number of responses to his article in ‘The New Yorker’, Malcolm Gladwell seems to have ruffled quite a few feathers, especially in the Twitter loving community. Not surprising, since he has torn apart at least a couple of Twitter’s poster children revolutions – Iran and Moldova. His grouse seems to be that we have forgotten what activism is, and are perhaps doing the word disrespect by using it for activities that happen basis the ‘weak ties’ of social media. The benchmark he sets for activism are indeed high – the Civil Rights Movement, which happened before and without the internet.
However, as Maria explains in her post, different generations face different societal challenges. They also have a different set of tools that enable them to achieve changes in the status quo. And that’s probably why I think its unfair to dismiss the influence of social platforms in combating the issues of our time. The issues can be across domains – from water crises (check Mashable’s post on Blog Action Day 2010 – Water) to changing the ‘unhealthy’ business models of several traditional media outlets. It is challenging individuals to create and collaborate and break out of work/life mindsets. I am able to be part of say, a micro finance venture and spread the word on social channels. Such changes can’t be deemed worthless. In any case we’re perhaps too early to postulate what these tools would achieve. Precisely being in the middle of this would take away our objectivity.
Despite this hilarious Maslow’s hierarchy of internet needs, I’d like to think that we are moving through a hierarchy as web technologies evolve. From a general source of information, the web has moved on to being able to connect us in context. It has allowed the rapid amplification of signals. We have only started with location as a context of networking. There would be a tremendous difference when we start addressing civic issues, using social tools as a means to aggregate locality based communities. In essence, tools are just that, and we have to define contexts to make them more useful. And we have to evolve to that level.
Maybe there will never be massive revolutions, just small uprisings across time and place that subvert what could’ve been a great crisis if it was allowed to grow without checks.
There was an article recently at PSFK, which, in addition to the impending data explosion, also talks of the need for brands to invest in technology to mine, analyse and identify changing consumer needs and opportunities. Though probably, at a later stage, the automatic ‘sensors’ mentioned in the article would beat the self-expression media services as the largest data source, at this stage, the latter seem to be the biggest contributors.
So what is the data that’s getting generated? As social networks evolve, the role that they play in the individual’s life is also evolving. While flow of information, and communication seem to find social networks as natural conduits, the networks are also now sources of entertainment for many. (study by Edelman) What does this entail for brands, their communication and the content they generate?
Amidst the social network revolution, brands have been trying hard to eke out a place for themselves – to slide in easily into the conversations, and lives of individual users. Some have been successful, and some have not, the latter mostly when they try to use these as distribution channels for other media content alone. I read a few days back that the two official sponsors for the World Cup – Adidas and Coke, had been trumped by their competitors – Nike, and Pepsi, as far as WOM goes. Not surprising, both tell excellent stories. It makes us feel.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idLG6jh23yE
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQmu48sZohc
There’s this excellent presentation by Rory Sutherland about intangible, and perceived value that brands create. A bit dated, but I happened to see it recently. It made me think about Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs and the tangibility of various levels.
As civilisation advances and scarcities and abundance are rapidly traded, and as brands progress, don’t the lower levels of Maslow’s needs hierarchy become hygiene? So, would users prefer brands that help them in the esteem and self actualisation areas? It perhaps might be an example of ‘seeing the subtext you want to see’, but the Nike ad – ‘Write the Future’ seemed to be all about self actualisation and the Pepsi’s ‘Oh Africa’ seemed to be all about an ever-changing crowd that seems to be impossible to keep pace with. To quote Clay Shirky, “The category of ‘consumer’ is now a temporary behavior rather than a permanent identity.”
Which brings me back to the data explosion. The challenge, I guess, is an old one. Finding motivations, sensing patterns out of all the data to understand why we ‘Like’, why we ‘share’, and so on, and then give us a value proposition. With rapidly evolving technologies, even the value needs to adapt much faster than before, because if the brand is late, there’ll be another that delivers. But then again, at higher need levels, when the individuality/uniqueness quotient increases, will the manifestation of needs show a collective pattern? Or will the individual’s behaviour pattern become more important for brands? Multiple data sets, multiple patterns, multiple challenges. Interesting times indeed 🙂
Meanwhile, here’s one closer home. (via Gaurav) A very interesting project by Tithiya Sharma – The 100 Heroes Project. I’m sure it’ll be a wonderful story and if I were an airline brand or even a MakeMyTrip/Cleartrip or anything to do with travel, I’d take a look at the project.
