Buzz!Words

Brands as Cults

I like to read a lot of books, especially those I think that I will profoundly disagree with.  Constantly challenging my opinions is part of my learning process.

I'm about halfway through Douglas Atkin's new book The Culting of Brands.  And I have to say, that I'm surprised, but it looks like he has a lot to say that makes sense.  Essentially, Atkins proposes that Brands are becoming the centre of virtual communities, which are replacing the old fashioned geographically centred communities that we are used to.  He also believes that brands help us create meaning and identity.

My only reservation about this concept is that it will likely be misused and misapplied by those who are addicted to management ghuru books.  Not every brand is ready to become a cult brand. 

Here is the thing.  You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.  If a brand is not well managed, does not have strong brand equity, and a clear brand positioning, good distribution, if its fundamentals are not carefully managed, it will never get to the point where a community or cult will form. 

Yes, savvy marketers can do things to encourage the development or culting of a brand, but, if the foundation of a strong brand isn't in place, then the creation of a cult can never happen. 

How Do You Educate Consumers?

I watched the documentary Supersize Me last night on DVD. It was a great movie - I highly recommend watching it. Aside from the enormous health implications of the fast food industry, the movie got me thinking about the importance of both personal responsibility and the responsibility of marketers.

I've also recently read two books, Fast Food Nation, by Eric Schlosser and Food Politics, by Marion Nestle. Both point a long finger of blame toward industy, and marketers in particular for the health crisis that we are facing in North America. So what is the responsibility of marketing?

Here's the glitch. The capitalist system is based on offering customers what they want, when and where they want it. The company that can do this best, at the best value will become very profitable. Consumers want salt, fat, sugar and caffeine. They taste good. Fast Food companies and food manufacturers (let's not let the grocery companies off the hook here), deliver those things in a convenient package inexpensively. So, marketers are doing exactly what the consumer wants them to do. Is there anything unethical about that?

Now I have to come clean. I worked for two large food manufacturers - Kraft and General Mills - for a number of years. I never saw myself or my peers as unethical, or as manipulative. I always believed that the consumer has a choice whether to purchase a product or not. The rationale I always heard for not educating consumers has always been, "that's not our job" or "it would cost too much" or "we trust the consumer to make informed choices".

The problem is, the consumer is not always informed. They may not care, they may not have access to information, or the information may be hidden from them (big tobacco is a case in point). They may not have the inclination to get the full information because it seems like a relatively harmless, low risk choice.

So how much responsibility does the marketer have to educate a consumer? Well, I don't know. What I do know is that marketing is evolving into a conversation with consumers. Maybe we just have to have ongoing conversations, through media like blogs, websites, emails and traditional TV and radio, to figure out what consumers don't know, and need to know, how and why they might change their behaviour. So how do you educate a consumer about the complex subject of nutrition? Well, that's the challenge for food marketers to figure out. And a challenge for health professionals.

Closing our eyes to increasing consumer dissatisfaction with corporate behaviour (aside from the Fast Food companies, you have Big Tobacco, Enron, Tyco, the list is endless) will only lead to long term cynicism and growing distrust. So, despite the costs, complexity and risks, marketers have got to start having conversations with consumers, about both the benefits and the risks of their products. It's time to be authentic.

Reports of the Death of Branding

I just finished reading the first chapter of Love Marks, by Kevin Roberts. I actually have to agree with a lot of what he says. (At least so far... we'll see in chapter 2). But something got me so bugged that I just had to blog.

Roberts says that brands are "all out of juice". So far so good. He backs it up with some pretty compelling points. Brands are worn out from overuse, have been smothered by creeping conservatism. You get the picture. But the point that got me "juiced up", was as follows:

Brands can't understand the new consumer.

To be blunt, that's crap. It's marketers that can't understand the new consumer. And marketers don't understand the new consumer because they are not empathetic to their needs. They aren't trained with the new tools in anthropology, psychology and sociology, and they don't get the average consumer's life. Brands will become even more important precisely because the well executed brand does understand the new consumer.

More later on the missing tools in the marketer's kit.