Tag: Mercedes-Benz

  • Social deluxe

    Sometime back, Mashable had an interesting post on luxury brands and social media. While a few points were raised on the challenges, the one that interested me most was how the facet of  ‘exclusivity’ could be balanced with the relatively open nature of social media, especially Facebook and Twitter. The post also highlights a couple of examples – the aspiration based FB fanpage of Gucci and the invite-only closed social network of Mercedes Benz – GenerationBenz.com. The examples were interesting because they were two different approaches – of how luxury brands can use social media. On a related note, Jeremiah Owyang wrote a post a few days back – 5 ways luxury brands can overcome the conundrum of social marketing.

    Before we discuss the specific usage on social media, how exactly do brands become classified as luxury? According to the post above, “When linked to brands, it is characterized by a recognizable style, strong identity, high awareness, and enhanced emotional and symbolic associations. It evokes uniqueness and exclusivity, and is interpreted in products through high quality, controlled distribution and premium pricing”. I assume the above takes into the account the parameter of service – not just in the case of say, hospitality or other service luxury brands, but even regular luxury brands, since the overall experience (from the retail experience of shopping for the brand to post purchase service) is key to earning the tag of a luxury brand.

    With regards to social media, I’d say that social media has this way of stripping the veneer, of removing the fluff around entities so that its reputation is made/broken basis its performance on the core value it provides. In fact, sometimes even the cost of ‘production’ is not taken into account, the audience expects things for free and the crowd makes its own sense of value for the product. (yes, I am referring to the interesting free vs paid debate) Wired has an excellent article titled ‘The Good Enough Revolution‘, where it takes examples from various sectors to show how, with advancing technology, consumers’ expectations from their purchases are changing drastically – the rise of the ‘good enough’ tools. While it is essentially attributed to the busy lives we lead now, the fact that it is also ideal for recessionary times is highlighted. From the article,

    We now favor flexibility over high fidelity, convenience over features, quick and dirty over slow and polished. Having it here and now is more important than having it perfect. These changes run so deep and wide, they’re actually altering what we mean when we describe a product as “high-quality.”

    Of course, there still is an audience that doesn’t live by these credos, but that’s perhaps not really a large number. One could argue that this was the only audience that mattered to luxury brands anyway, but If this trend catches on, then the entire premise of luxury branding becomes wobbly. PSFK has an interesting note on a Louis Vuitton Calabash – on mixing the notions of utility and luxury, and how the addition of a designer label on a commonplace item raises a question on the value of things. A lot of the luxury brand’s aura is through maintaining a perception among the audience, and keeping itself as an aspiration among potential consumers – couching utility in intangibles. This is not taking away anything from the quality of the product per se, but the entire concept of ‘brand’ is usually seen as a way to distinguish the product from similar products and take it to a level  above that of a commodity. A lot of communication these days is about the aura/show off value of the luxury brand than anything to do with the product superiority. In a way, its quite logical (and obvious) because if luxury brands focus on the utilitarian value of their product, they really wouldn’t get ahead. The counter point to this would be that the premium charged by the luxury brand is for the emotional high of using the brand, in addition to the (hopefully) superior quality that it provides. Does it mean that luxury brands would have to relook at the premiums they charge?

    But having said all that, there are quite a few things that seem to point towards potential synergy between luxury brands and social media. One of the points that Jeremiah mentioned in his post is the usage of celebrity associations. Celebrities are now running rampant on social networks, and luxury brands have a good means of weaving themselves into the conversation, and increasing their aspiration value. Usage by a celebrity also gives them a context to kickstart conversations. Also, social media is about emotional connect and sharing. If much of a luxury brand’s aura is built on the emotional appeal, then it can use social media very well to its advantage. After all, what other medium offers such easy methods to spread some ‘show off’ value? 🙂 I thought the Mercedes Benz idea of a closed network would be great if they allowed users at least partial portability of data to other networks. (to, rather than from) The ‘share’ aspect of social media will also help identify potential customers via existing ones. But most importantly, I feel the biggest use of social media (actually the web in general) for luxury brands is the audience data that is being generated on a regular basis, real time. It offers better segmenting and targeting opportunities, and while this is applicable to all brands, it is all the more important for luxury brands. This can be used for gaining more insights, encouraging sampling and so on.

    It is definitely an interesting conundrum, but the web, thankfully has space for all kinds, I think. Will appreciate your thoughts. 🙂

    until next time, the luxury of real time? 😉

  • Brands & Associations..

    When we met sometime back, Nikhil asked whether I’d noticed the smudging of the Coke logo in a scene from Slumdog Millionaire. I hadn’t, and we weren’t sure if there was something to it. A few days back, I saw this article in Campaign India, which spoke about Mercedes and Coke rejecting an association with the movie, and demanding that their ‘association’ with the movie be smudged/deleted – Mercedes, because a gangster is driving it (passenger – Mahesh Manjrekar, during the cricket game-police chase scene) and Coke, because it is offered in the slum (as a ‘carrot’, before they are taken to the beggar camp). The article ends with

    While the average brand manager would have been delighted with the seeming ‘free’ publicity, executives at both Benz and Coke took a deep breath to consider the dangers to the brands. There would certainly have been some short-term gain, but was that gain worth it in the context of possible long-term damage?

    Possible long term damage?! I wonder if Mercedes-Benz has this set of parameters, which a potential customer has to fit, before he is given the keys. Maybe they do, I haven’t tried buying it, but then what about resale? What about proxy owners? On to Coke, do they restrict their distribution channel to areas which their specific target audience resides in? Does a pet bottle self destruct when it recognises economic/living conditions that it would not fit in? Does Coke actually mean that when i am thirsty, I’d not have a Coke because Jamal, a slumdog, had it in a movie??!! So, what exactly are we trying here? I am going to focus on Coke, because with their price tag, Mercedes-Benz can afford to be elitist, but Coke??!! Besides, at #22 in the Virtue’s most social brands of 2008, this is hardly the kind of mindset I’d expect from Coke.

    I understand that a brand has a certain target audience (in terms of demographics-SEC) it keeps in mind while designing communication. Good, it gives focus. But aren’t we going a bit ahead of ourselves when we think that consumers really have the time to check out all possible associations of the brand, especially these one off occurrences? (unlike say, the Indica – taxi phenomenon)

    At a time, when people can shoot what they want and load it on YouTube/Flickr and get a few thousand hits before the brand manager can say ‘Cut’, what sense does such policing make? Really, how much can you control where your brand is seen and what is being done with it? (Remember Diet Coke + Mentos)

    Almost 20 lakh views. That’s viral. Smudge that!!

    IMHO, this is exactly the kind of restrictive thinking that brands cannot afford in such times. Coke could’ve easily converted this into a ‘From Slumdog to Millionaire – Coke (Always/The Coke side of life/Open happiness)’ stance. But what do I know, I’m just a normal consumer 😐

    This very interesting adliterate article talks about empathy, and how brands try to understand consumers but never try to see the world through their eyes. By starting out with this perspective,

    We would then perhaps have a collection of real and individual stories about people who are from the group we are seeking to influence. These would be real accounts of real people’s lives.And to get those stories we would need a new approach to engaging with people directly and without fear.

    Instead, as he correctly states, we try to lump our audience into easily manageable categories, so that communication then becomes automatically an easier job. The old media scenario and the systems of distribution therein, had a way of making this perhaps the only way. But with the proliferation of niche TV channels, the web and social media, brands can now break the big lump into almost individual pieces which gives each potential consumer a unique relationship with the brand.

    Based on their context, a single brand means different things to different people, and fit into their lives differently. The sooner brands recognise this, the more meaningful their communication can become, to the consumer.

    until next time, open up 🙂