As brand marketers continue to search for ways to keep brands relevant, some recent inputs from Wharton on how brands are evolving are worth noting.
Meaning vs moment
Americus Reed has observed that the connection shoppers are looking to build with brands through purpose and vision spurs the need to build “a very deep, well articulated, clear and richly understood meaning system”.
A system, in itself of course, describes a set of things or principles that work together in a holistic way. Dr Reed’s description suggests that brands must look to generate value, community and loyalty through combinations of commitment, actions, storytelling and semiotics.
That’s interesting because to us that points to a polarisation in brand connection – between those brands looking to clearly stand for something in the minds of customers, and those brands that are becoming much more momentary in their approach.
Relevance and attention have historically been portrayed as synonyms in marketing terms (people pay attention to things that they feel pertain to them), but increasingly they have different playbooks. Relevance focuses on consistency, presence and recognition. Attention is about trends, contagion and forging hits. There are all sorts of quandaries within this too for sustainability, supply chain integrity and so much more.
Personal vs powerful
Wharton researchers also looked at what they called the Cristiano Ronaldo Effect, the power of influencers and what happens to it as those active on social media take on celebrity status.
Their research examined whether or not brands should invest in mega-influencers or use micro influencers to drive up brand interest. They explored this using a data set known as FEI or Follower Elasticity of Impressions. They concluded that while videos posted by superstars are seen by more people, those people have less direct connection with their followers. Almost universally, and ironically, an increase in influencer popularity is matched by a decline in influence itself. A notable exception is influencers promoting gaming-related content with a strong social component.
We think this finding may apply more broadly than the pulling power of influencers. It suggests a trade-off between reach and relatedness that brands need to carefully navigate. For some brands, the wish to throw a wide net will always be there because it generates impressive metrics through the use of proven entities. But others will prefer to take a more targeted, quieter approach that is focused on delivering personal value. It’s a harder position to justify because it lacks the obvious optics, but in an age of noise, there’s a lot to be said for quiet strength.
In some ways, celebrity and personalisation have parted the seas. Our instinct is that this trade-off between reach and relatedness, between width and depth if you will, will play out in different ways across different sectors. Brands seeking fame and fans will gravitate to big-bang events. Those that are more focused on relationships or community base will look to increase intensity.
Intensive vs inclusive
An uplifting finding from Wharton’s research is that diversity can be a strong motivator for sales among broad consumer groups. The feelgood factor that comes with more inclusion and representation pays off directly on the bottom-line. A key take-out is that brands that broaden who they portray using their products are seen as more welcoming and engaging.
It’s tempting to reinforce impressions around who buys your brand in all sorts of ways. The drive to get particular consumers to self-identify with what a brand stands for (see point 1 above) can also mean that the brand looks to forge that association at the expense of other potential parties. Equally, *everybody* is not a target market.
The opportunity here is to perhaps redefine customer bases so that they are more about inclination than demographics. It’s interesting for example to see how beauty companies are increasingly transitioning their brand promise away from looking young to feeling young.
On that basis, perhaps more brands could be thinking about not just who they could include, but also what that might mean for what they stand for. Purpose must be distinctive but it also includes to be inclusive. Greater range within brands may also allow some to welcome widely and upsell specifically.
One more – Freeform vs fixed form
Recently, the ever astute Geoffrey Colon quoted Julian Mitchell, “I honestly think companies that will benefit most are the ones that actively seek and acquire creators and curators … They will be smart, savvy people who live in the culture the brand thrives to connect with. Who speak the language, reflect the style, and embody the attitude of the intended audience.”
It’s a point that aligns with what Ana Andjelic has also been saying for some time. The brands of today are or are becoming less managed and more mercurial. They read the social room and find the connection and networking points, and they need to be managed in the same way. Essentially, if we’re reading this right, these brands are becoming the influencers. Resonant brands, in sectors where timeliness counts, are by-passing the middle party and looking to influence the culture directly.
That’s a very different way of thinking about brand management. Obviously, it’s more suited to some sectors than others. But there’s no denying that it will impact brand governance overall if it takes hold. Right now, we’re seeing brands shift to performance bias because of financial pressure. But if these three brand observers are right, we’re going to see more of a delineation between brands that go long and those that go short. Between the brands that control and those that roam. The flexors and the flexible. We refer to this as the battle between the story tellers and the fast talkers. How those different ideas come to market, and how they get managed in market, are chalk and cheese.
How is your brand evolving?
It’s important to notice these shifts in how brands are evolving because business and technology are never static. Nor is it a case of placing bets on who will win. Because the contrasts identified here will continue to play out, we believe, for some time to come.
But it may be the case that, if you are a brand leader, you need to take sides. You may need to choose how you will assert the choices you make. And counter what other brands in your sector decide to do. Starting with your strategy.
And flowing from there into everything from how you utilise data and AI to product design, digital platforms, storytelling, sustainability and circularity. Even how you think about and express your identity.
Our Plan to Thrive is an effective way to set a long term course for your brand. To find out more, please take a look at how we can help you define your future. Then contact us.
If you’re looking for something crisper first-up, book a half-morning strategy session. We can talk through what your business strategy implies the future of your brand could look like. In person or online.
Acknowledgements
Photo by Drew Dizzy Graham on Unsplash