Or should they be beacons for the future?
Should they disrupt mechanical and habituated ways of being?
Take the place of human icons in a world empty of them and thus become virtual leaders?
Or should brands become objects of love and intimacy for people?
 |
| Rupin Jayal |
There is no clear-cut answer and the most appropriate one may lie somewhere in the midst of all these choices (and possibly more). But in the coming days — and even when we emerge from the current downturn — the world of brands, branding, and communication are poised to change irrevocably and forever. Without excessive crystal-ball-gazing, people are going to speak for their favorite brands far more than ever before and be equally vocal about the ones they dislike. “brand communication” will increasingly be a debate where so-called brand custodians and owners will form part of the conversation. The power will have shifted, and these custodians will need to live up to what their brands’ users and loyalists believe about them, rather than telling these same users and loyalists what they “should” know, believe, and feel about these brands.
So will brands increasingly become repositories for the beliefs and convictions of those who choose them and thus play a relatively passive role in the future? To play an active rather than just a participatory role, the relationship between brands and their users will have to be far more symbiotic. Brands will no longer be able to “tell” (and sometimes dictate) people what they “should” perceive about them as in the past. However, brands, to be truly enduring and successful, will not be able to abdicate a proselytizing role entirely either. Both extremes will only result in short-lived success.
Almost in sync with the rise of brands has been the fall of inspirational leadership in the world. The paradox was that, as world leaders gained ever greater power to influence people’s lives, they lost the stature of being able to exercise it meaningfully. Petty people created petty conflicts on an unimaginable scale. Brands stepped in to fill the vacuum and spoke for the aspirations of the so-called “masses.” Brands increasingly began to stand for the fundamental values that iconic leaders of the past had stood for, and at the same time represented a “stairway to [a] heaven” of aspirations. For example, Toyota fundamentally represents reliability, Body Shop ethical values, Snapple and Ben & Jerrys the value of authenticity, Tata honorable business, and Apple has freedom.
However, in the main, the bulk of brands stood for varying degrees of aspiration. It was a world where aspiration ruled as a primary motivator. This all-pervasive motivating power drove people to strive beyond the sustainable, and oftentimes beyond the believable. Castles were built of thin air and people paid notional money for notional dreams. Unfortunately, the bill for all this unbridled aspiration has now arrived, and our credit is overdrawn.
So what should brands really stand for? The answer partly lies in the prevailing climate and culture of the people in which the brand operates. However, if there is one overarching aspect that brands will need to stand for, much more powerfully than ever before, it will have to be hope. Brands will need to integrate genuinely “noble cause” dimensions within their value system. This would have to be in sync with core brand values, and need to transcend aspiration and acquisition. Through representing a fundamental commitment to a better world, brands will become harbingers of hope.
Brands that are able to seamlessly and most powerfully merge “noble causes” and core brand values together will be the brands of the future. Hence, a music brand could ensure that it focuses on music as a dissolver of differences. It could encourage its artists to create music that brings opposing cultures closer to each other and create an entirely new genre of music that seeks to heal. People who doubt the power of music to impact lives only have to examine the power of black spiritual music during the dark days of segregation in the US, the way it brought anti-war demonstrators together during the 1970s, or the influence of musicians in Africa during the time of apartheid. All these show us that music can actually work towards healing the increasing fissures that divide our world.
Similarly, an electrical appliance brand could, for example, set aside some of its R&D capability in creating products that run on renewable sources of energy. The most obvious of these could be solar-powered appliances. But going beyond — how about creating a range of “buddy appliances”? Every time you buy an oven, for example, the brand would contribute towards providing a cooking appliance that replaces fossil fuels in an underprivileged home. Every time you buy a washing machine you could help provide a simple water filtration unit for a village family. Every rupee you spend could subsidize health and nutritional products for people who cannot afford them. The upper levels of the income pyramid would thus enable those living below to start moving up. By integrating this and thereby standing for more than just the narrow category they operate in, brands could transform lives far more than governmental intervention through taxes and levies, which are unevenly distributed and with scant respect for effectiveness. Helping ensure effective distribution and the creation of appropriate networks could create plenty of employment and entrepreneurial opportunities for people, and it could be another way to ensure greater inclusiveness and thus a larger market. The growth in the size of the market would contribute to growing volumes, which could actually translate into cheaper products for the people buying them — enlightened self-interest for all.
Automobile companies could participate and use their expertise in creating mass transportation systems. As these would, over time, reduce the pressure on road infrastructure and take the hassle of everyday commuting out of people’s lives; people could return to buying automobiles mainly for the pleasure of driving them, and thus, over time, rescue a sector that seems to be heading towards terminal decline.
 |
None of these would generate immediate returns. But people today are growing wary of “quick” results — having seen how precipitous the decline can be from such “wonder” bubbles. A key factor of our lives in the future will hinge on sustainability. It will be critical to creating an atmosphere of hope. Sustainability doesn’t just mean ecological or financial sustainability (de-leveraging and living within one’s means), but also social sustainability (reducing growing income disparities, for example), technological sustainability (innovation that reduces rather than increases complexity and pressure), and lifestyle sustainability (reducing the impact of cyclical economic rollercoasters on the fundamental way of living one’s life). Brands could encourage sustainability and thus build a climate of hope for the future, rather than contribute to cyclical feeding frenzies followed by scuttling for cover when times inevitably turn bad. As politicians continue to be engaged with holding on to ever more evanescent power, brands that want to play a more fundamental role in people’s lives will need to fill the visionary vacuum. So, for example, in the future, rather than a public outcry causing food and beverage brands to introduce “good/better for you products,” the true leadership brands of the future would seek to understand the real, larger impact of their products on the lives of the people who use them rather than just narrow product benefits, and pre-empt man-made epidemics like obesity. Automobile brands seeking to create true leadership will not only sell to people with a proven record of safe and reasonable driving, but will also contribute towards minimizing that which makes driving a chore, and thus recreate the pleasure of driving. Other brands will seek to understand the impact they make through areas such as technology, conspicuous consumption, etc. to prevent problems such as information overload, peer pressure, and isolation. Brands will view their role in people’s lives more holistically, and more of them will seek to play a more fundamental role in people’s lives rather than just dealing with consumer response, product benefits, functions and features, and more.
The brands that will represent hope will be brands that occupy the pride of place in people’s hearts because they actually seek to make a difference to people’s lives, and not in the narrow sense of category and attributes. To truly represent hope, brands will need to move out of the “consumer”, “market,” and “category” thinking. Brands and brand thinking will need to undergo a fundamental evolution to be true leaders of hope and thus be the leaders of Brand 2.0:
From Consumers --> To People Market place --> Lifespace Category --> Mindspace
Such a fundamental paradigm shift will impact everything we now know and believe about brands and branding. Most brands have to catch up with the depth of people’s awareness, knowledge, and the resulting convictions. Those that do will evolve from being objects of aspiration to becoming beacons of hope. Those that do not will lose the battle for “heartspace” and will ultimately be eroded by corrosive indifference.
The author is Director-Strategic Planning at M&C Saatchi.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Gucci outlet, July 03, 2010
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
