Opportunistic Brands & Cultural Shifts
During a recent webinar by Faris Yakob on the present future of strategy he mentioned how some of the strongest insights often comes from cultural shifts.
An example from my colleague, JHL, was how Levis capitalized on the shift from the industrial revolution to knowledge based economies to champion for a new type of jeans.
A better example which he gave later upon further probing (what about United Colors of Benetton and Abercrombie & Fitch? Were they just trying to be controversial or did they sense a seismic shift in culture which leads to them championing for a certain cause?) was that of OMO's Dirt is Good campaign. Because schools have already been starting to encourage kids to play outdoors to stimulate development, OMO capitalized on this trend to change a mindset that dirt is bad.
At the same time, after a Neuroscience workshop I had a question on whether there are times when testing failed, which is when the speaker mentioned that cultural context is something that they cannot test. I suppose that is where your planners come in to offer that perspective/knowledge.
Culture. We live and breathe in it, but do we know how to observe and use it for brands so as to create strong work?
What is the cultural tension at play? Those who can find the right ones for the right brands will be rewarded.
The question is, are we doing enough of it? Culture is a living, breathing context to everything. How much of it then is to identify it during the beginning stages, as opposed to when it already becomes mass?
The problem with major brands is that they carry a lot of baggage as to what the brand SHOULD be like. Consumers also expect a certain image or positioning which should not change. As a result, they find themselves responding to trends/cultural shifts at a glacial pace. For example, McD will always be about family - they will never be able to fully shed that association, yet at the same time we see that consumers in developed markets are increasingly individualistic or 'loners'.
You can rebrand - but it is simply shedding an old skin for a new one - and how often can you do a rebrand every time there is a 'cultural shift'?
I then had a brainwave - what if giant brands like Starbucks started buying over or starting their own indie cafes, which are popping up left right and center? They will definitely make money because consumers are going
Of course, the counter-argument is that they are inadvertently creating their own competitors, and how do you scale to make billions of dollars?
But in this day and age of increased fragmentation of brands, and explosion of information, shouldn't the amount of brands explode as well to capture different market segments before it is too late?
Then I chanced upon this article that Starbucks IS indeed doing it already by buying up bakeries and starting tea parlors etc.
Nice.
An example from my colleague, JHL, was how Levis capitalized on the shift from the industrial revolution to knowledge based economies to champion for a new type of jeans.
A better example which he gave later upon further probing (what about United Colors of Benetton and Abercrombie & Fitch? Were they just trying to be controversial or did they sense a seismic shift in culture which leads to them championing for a certain cause?) was that of OMO's Dirt is Good campaign. Because schools have already been starting to encourage kids to play outdoors to stimulate development, OMO capitalized on this trend to change a mindset that dirt is bad.
At the same time, after a Neuroscience workshop I had a question on whether there are times when testing failed, which is when the speaker mentioned that cultural context is something that they cannot test. I suppose that is where your planners come in to offer that perspective/knowledge.
Culture. We live and breathe in it, but do we know how to observe and use it for brands so as to create strong work?
What is the cultural tension at play? Those who can find the right ones for the right brands will be rewarded.
The question is, are we doing enough of it? Culture is a living, breathing context to everything. How much of it then is to identify it during the beginning stages, as opposed to when it already becomes mass?
The problem with major brands is that they carry a lot of baggage as to what the brand SHOULD be like. Consumers also expect a certain image or positioning which should not change. As a result, they find themselves responding to trends/cultural shifts at a glacial pace. For example, McD will always be about family - they will never be able to fully shed that association, yet at the same time we see that consumers in developed markets are increasingly individualistic or 'loners'.
You can rebrand - but it is simply shedding an old skin for a new one - and how often can you do a rebrand every time there is a 'cultural shift'?
I then had a brainwave - what if giant brands like Starbucks started buying over or starting their own indie cafes, which are popping up left right and center? They will definitely make money because consumers are going
Of course, the counter-argument is that they are inadvertently creating their own competitors, and how do you scale to make billions of dollars?
But in this day and age of increased fragmentation of brands, and explosion of information, shouldn't the amount of brands explode as well to capture different market segments before it is too late?
Then I chanced upon this article that Starbucks IS indeed doing it already by buying up bakeries and starting tea parlors etc.
Nice.
Comments
Post a Comment