However, with inequities becoming even more of a pressing topic, and the expectation from brands to be active participants in society – activism to action, is there an inevitable movement that we will see? And hence, this post on brands through the prism of activism and morality, from the perspectives of a consumer and a brand marketer, and the safety of an armchair.

“We are living in an era of woke capitalism in which companies pretend to care about social justice to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism.”

Clay Routledge

Communication: In the case of brands, one could argue that what good is morality without signalling? Who has the time to discover “goodness”? Once upon a time, in the days of one-way media, this was easy. But these days, any stance becomes automatically confrontational because… social media. But before we even get to the stance, consider plain communication.

I found the Bingo case hilarious because it was based on a perception that Ranveer’s character was making fun of Sushant! We have moved from people believing whatever they want to people insisting that brands also believe it! The Myntra logo change is another recent example. A more polarising one? Swiggy and the farmers protests tweet. It’s not just the communication. Zomato even had to explain why it was advertising on Republic TV. I did wonder how it was spotted though – if one hates the channel, would one be watching it?

Most consumer-facing brands would love to be part of popular culture. And maybe even shape it. Because that’s where money is made. Remember commissioned researches highlighting “trends” that favoured brands? But now, any contact with culture is a double edged sword. It also means that just signalling using communication is a recipe for disaster. This leads us to the business at large.

Business: Back in November, an India – Australia match was interrupted by a spectator holding up a placard with the SBI logo and “No $1 BN ADANI LOAN”. Thanks to social media, YONO (You Only Need One) to go viral! And SBI is not even famous for taking a stance.

But let’s step back. Tom Roach makes a compelling case for “Brand purpose. The biggest lie the ad industry ever told?“, and also draws some excellent distinctions on the three types of “purposeful brands” – Born Purposeful, Corporate Converts, and Pseudo-Purposeful.

But there are complexities. Take Ben & Jerry’s. Sugar aside, they are a B corp (“businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose”) – a poster child for purposeful brands, I’d say. But they are also part of Unilever, which on one hand has a policy to help staff facing abuse, but also have the controversial Dove, not to mention Axe, and Fair & Lovely! Similarly, while Bournvita wins brownies for exam ads, and Cadbury for hyper-personalisation, the parent company Mondelez continues to face several accusations of “fairwashing” and environmental damage.

Ikea, another favourite brand, has built some amazing experiences (in addition to iconic ads), but even as they promise to address sustainability, they face some pretty steep challenges. Nike is famous for inspiring ads, but I have written about its double standards earlier. And there is an excellent FT article on internal cultural issues.

Some cases are a bit more black & white. Big Tech is probably a good replacement for Big Tobacco. Not one in GAFA is without serious blemishes. Then there are edtech giants exploiting parents’ FOMO, and promising to help their kids crack the million $ salary code. Real money gaming does virtue signalling by showing ads that have folks using their gains for a good cause, never mind the addiction involved.

A small note on celebrity brands. It’s probably easier because on a relative scale, the public face is usually an individual. Though it is true that they get called out repeatedly for their errors. In 2020, Indian celebrities and #BlackLivesMatter turned out to be quite a #facepalm. When Virat Kohli, who famously declined a Pepsi endorsement and deservingly earned praise, promotes MPL, are we to believe he is oblivious of the harm caused? Meanwhile, call me cynical, but I thought Sonu Sood’s “investments” have given him handsome endorsement returns!

In summation, I think, most brands and businesses are somewhere on the spectrum. Between politics, racial injustice, gender discrimination, environmental concerns, religion, and so on, there are many eggshells, and I understand that the task is not easy. The only beef I have is with false intent signalling. Is that “fake it until you make it”? I don’t know. Capitalism is already trying to mould it with things like ESG funds, many of which have Big Tech stocks! The hope is that between B-corps and zebras (below), we will go from tokenism to “__washing” to actual change.

Consumer:

“We’re living in an era of ‘woke’ capitalism, right? I’m Nike, I pretend to care about black people. You pretend to hate capitalism and buy my trainers.”

“Industry” (BBC/HBO)

This pretension helps us retain our self image while consuming the things and experiences. There is narrative cohesion while avoiding uncomfortable truths. And sometimes, even some virtue signalling. This is not judgment by the way. We’re wired for short-term gratification, and our lifestyles ensure that choices are heavily influenced by convenience. I shop from Amazon while theoretically being against what it is doing to retail businesses and consumption in general.

In this context, I feel for Indian parents – between edtech companies telling them that coding should be part of pregnancy (well, almost there!) to Bournvita shaming them, it’s a tough choice! Products containing sugar doing virtue signalling is some irony, but I am not sure the Indian consumer is ready to recognise it yet.

I think there will be a few steps before we reach awareness and action at a consumer level. Sometime back, Dhathri Ayurveda was fined by the consumer disputes redressal commission for misleading ads. Significantly, so was the ad’s endorser. I am hoping to see influencers becoming accountable next. And then, maybe it will be easier for consumers to think about this. Though I do see an early majority of customers making these choices because now there are options.

I’d say that a lot of consumer activism and brands supporting activism in the last year have been a reaction to Covid. Not that the emotions didn’t exist, but tectonic changes in lifestyles “forced” us to take stock. ‘Woke from home”, as I said once. How much of this will continue in the years to come remains to be seen.

Marketer: My profession requires me to view ads through lenses different from a regular consumer. That’s probably why my angst tends to bubble up earlier too. And the dilemma ranges from simple daily operations to larger strategic decisions and even career progression. As a brand marketer, I use Facebook and Google extensively, conscious of the platforms’ malicious intent. Each time we brainstorm ideas/campaigns, we screen for whether it will offend anyone. Sometimes this comes at the cost of creativity. Because it needn’t even be offensive, it just needs to be perceived that way. Who cares about the intent? I have also realised this is a serious limitation on one’s choices of employment. But that’s a different story, of morality and self image. What it does make me realise is that when an individual finds it unclear, it is perhaps too much to expect an abstract like a “brand” to get it right! But then again,

‘All it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to say, “It’s a business.”

Alan Shore, Boston Legal

P.S. A wonderful story from a while back. On business and human dignity.

Two events happened in the last fortnight that made me reflect more on this. The first was Apple’s power move on Facebook and Google. The second one was here in India – FDI regulations affecting Amazon and Flipkart. Both were shows of influence, and involved distribution.

It made me realise that the shelf life of this entire distribution-product-brand cycle is shrinking. Disruption is happening far before organisations can take advantage of wins at a previous level.

Distribution: Let’s take Apple as an example. While it might be powerful ostensibly on the strength of its products, I believe the play is as much distribution – App Store. The recent example (above) is proof of that strength. In fact, all the GAFA battles have the same theme. Distribution strength goes hand in hand with exclusive touchpoints, which serve as a medium to deliver and build more trust.

But that distribution has been disrupted! Spotify, and now Netflix and Epic (Fortnite) are examples of companies which are moving out of paying the App/Play Stores’ toll tax.

Product: The moves by Spotify/Netflix/Epic are all on the strength of the product. I am not really clued in on the music and game contexts, so let me take the Netflix narrative forward. Apple and Amazon recognise this threat, the latter is already showing examples of trying to play catch up using Prime. Amazon can indeed subsidise this play for longer, thanks to advantages accrued by other plays primarily in distribution. Netflix, on the other hand, is continually trying to keep its head above water. But despite no original advantages in distribution, it continues to be the dominant player in the domain. Just a small note on music though – in the first weekend of February, Marshmello’s concert on Fortnite had 10 million folks tuning in. Around the same time, Superbowl had a 98.2 million viewership. Tencent holds a 40% stake in Fortnite.

A more visible play can be found in the other kind of product – physical ones to extend and enhance the ecosystem. Add “smart” to watches, speakers, home, car, and you get the picture of what’s happening. The goal is ecosystem stickiness. But I cannot remember a non-GAFA product here that scores on differentiation and success.

The best examples of product disruption, however, would be direct-to-consumer (DTC) brands. The rush from CPG majors to acquire them is proof of that. More on DTC in a bit.

Brand: This is the final act, and the prize is consumer trust. By bringing the hammer down on Facebook and Google, Apple (again) underlined its worldview on privacy. As I have written before, a worldview is bound to be polarising. As a non-fan, I felt it was extreme. An Apple follower would applaud it.

On the strength of its product, Netflix is also a brand with a worldview. It is too early for me to see how this will pan out. So, at the risk of an incoherent narrative, let me switch tracks here.

DTC. The number of  brands that have been built on the back of a differentiated product is rising. Bonobos, Warby Parker, Casper have all built their brands on the internet, based on pricing and sometimes, a stated social mission. They have then extended themselves offline, thereby smartly disrupting product and distribution in one fell swoop.

The overall trend can be seen in many places. For instance, IMO, AirBnB has disrupted all three aspects above. Maybe Tesla too.

What next? It is still early stages. But my thinking is this – if I take the original frame and apply it to the consumer market at large, the internet worked as a distribution disruptor. In the early stages, it was truly a medium that surfaced the long tail. In a time-scarce world, they increasingly delivered choice, convenience and consumption seamlessness. Those who cracked this early eliminated offline incumbents and became the new gatekeepers. Amazon for products, Facebook for social connections, Google for well, anything, and even Netflix – for content. Through some great bundling of distribution, product and brand, they built consumer trust for an ecosystem. From a business perspective, the strength of that bundling is what lowers acquisition cost and increases lifetime value.

But as Netflix and DTC have shown, the shelf life of that advantage is already proving to be small. Apply the distribution-product-brand frame to a newspaper chain (vs HuffPo) /television network (vs Netflix) /education institution (vs Coursera) /restaurant chain (vs Swiggy) and so on, and the shelf life they enjoyed, and you’ll see what I mean. Now, the chokehold can be broken faster.

As the internet matures, choice, convenience and consumption seamlessness will be taken for granted. In fact, as Scott Galloway points out, in a world of infinite choice, a consumer would prefer confidence in the (fewer) choices presented to them. Ecosystems of distribution-product-brand will be built faster and likely not in that order either. In a post-internet era, victory looks possible only if all three aspects are secured simultaneously, and continuously.

In this era of abundant choice, a device I use when fighting battles with myself on personal consumption is the can-want-need framework. ‘Can’ is made increasingly easier now because of convenience, ‘want’ by the choices around, and sticking to ‘need’ is a very difficult task! I read a really good post which has mirrored this in the (consumer) technology space – “How Technology Hijacks People’s Minds…“.

It has a series of ‘hijack’ explanations, but it was the first one I found most interesting – “If you control the menu, you control the choices“. The point that’s brought up in this is whether we are actually being given an ‘illusion of choice’ because most of these choices don’t really match our actual needs. In the consumption context, I immediately compared Amazon, Facebook and Google. (Apple is restricted to its device/s) From a ‘menu’ perspective, I think that both Amazon and Facebook are quite restricted because ‘recommendations’ in both cases are largely based on my stated interests, conversations, social connections, and behaviour patterns of ‘people like me’. On the other hand, Google’s data has many more layers of contexts – search (including YouTube), mail, maps, Android and so on, and is thus relatively less of an echo chamber. The ‘menu’ in Google is arguably much bigger.

In terms of information, it isn’t as though it is one versus another. Social connections, behaviour of others like me all help me in discovery. However, as choice and convenience become even more abundant, the premium will be on time, because that (at this stage) is the most finite factor. As a user, I’d seek more of the service which offers me the solution that is contextually most relevant. Simply because of the kind of data Google has on me, I think it is the best placed to offer me what I need. (not can/want)

The other way of looking at it is through interfaces. I feel that Echo, as I had already mentioned in the earlier post, is a great start by Amazon to make its way into multiple interfaces. While FB has quite the stranglehold on mobile devices, beyond VR, I am uncertain about future interfaces. Here too, I find Google very well placed in its ability to use its AI to provide a ‘skin’ to various interfaces – at home, in automobiles and probably in the street too. While I do see some value in ‘social’ as a context in these interfaces, I also feel that the potential of other contexts might collectively outweigh it.

Meanwhile, in this context, take a look at this fantastic video whose title is self explanatory!

Google’s presence in the graphic above is only an indication of its IoT strategy, and I’d think that Android might be a great thread to connect it all together in the short run. Two words – Google Now. There’s been a lot of talk recently about Google losing its prime position. (example) Stagnating search advertising growth, Facebook’s strong showing in mobile advertising, Apple’s profitability from devices etc being the reasons. I am wondering if IoT will be a key to Google’s renaissance. (along with AI) Our interactions with the connected devices will result in a treasure trove of ‘intimate’ data that can be used for some excellent targeted advertising. Given its play in multiple verticals, Google will be in a great place to access the data. Arguably Glass was their big play at hardware beyond mobile. In any case, that didn’t seem to work. Yet. But with Nest, Dropcam and beyond (check out the patents including a smart doorknob!) Google does have quite some ammunition.

Samsung states that by 2020 all of the devices it sells will be connected to the IoT. For now, SmartThings, their recent acquisition, will serve as the connection between devices. (via) Apple, with HomeKit, is poised to become a key player as well. Quite possible that the combination of Apple Watch, Beacons and Apple Pay will bring in a completely new play on IoT. Even Amazon’s Echo is in the game. (read)

In the near and medium time frame, one of the things that I think will play a key role in converting the IoT into a WoT is the mobile device, mostly thanks to them being the common interface. The guys whom I’ve seen doing a great job with that right now is Xiaomi. The entire strategy seems to be use the very economical smartphone as the central device in their IoT plans. Recently they released a Smart Home Suite with four components –  a human motion sensor, a couple of door and window sensors and a wireless switching device for controlling appliances. They already have a connected air purifier and a bulb. (via) TVs and water purifiers are on their way. [Incidentally, they are not the only Chinese brands in the IoT game]

As is evident, there are many companies creating their own navigation paths in the IoT ecosystem. Hardware, software, infrastructure, services, consumer identities and how it can all be made to work together. To me, this is looking to be a play even more significant than the web was. That makes it a very interesting battle indeed.

P.S. For some hilarious IoT ideas, check The Internet of Useless Things

I am finding it impossible to wrap my head around what all of  this would mean to our concept of life. In the meanwhile, I do know that everything is changing at breakneck speed, and in order to survive, we need to be cognizant of things that can impact our lives – as individuals, and as organisations.  I have deliberately avoided the word ‘disruption’ because it gives me a sense of suddenness and it is a furiously debated topic these days. Rather, to quote John Green (said in another context) I think we’re in the first state of “Slowly, and then all at once”.  This, is my take on ‘Change’.

(Thanks Nikhil for helping on a couple of alphabets and Amit for Unsplash, the source of many images used)

I think I used ‘dis-aggregated social network‘ on this blog for the first time in 2009, referring to Google’s basket of services that were connected relatively flimsily then. IMO, Google has always been that way, even including Google+. (read) I remembered it when I tweeted this about Facebook – around the time news of their Fan Audience Network started trickling in.

FB’s move to disaggregate apps, now seen in conjunction with FAN makes magnificent strategic sense. #digital Oh, it’s a Saturday. Laters.

— manu prasad (@manuscrypts) April 26, 2014

It got me thinking (again) on ‘scale’, a recurring theme here. In a less complicated world, where the trends in the business landscape were significantly more linear, (growth, competition, consumption, economy) scale was a powerful weapon to wield. But it’s a different world now. Artificial Intelligence, 3D Printing, Internet of Things, Wearables  and a hundred other things might completely disrupt the status quo and the need an incumbent brand satisfies. These are the known ones, and then there are the conceptually invisible (at this point) ones. Surviving (let alone thriving) in this shifting scenario requires agility, and it is difficult (though not impossible) to see scale and agility together. I looked to Google and Facebook for an approach towards this because not only are they surviving, they seem to be thriving. Yes, we’ll get to Amazon in a while.

What does it take to be agile at scale? I can think of four ingredients, the last three repurposed from the title of this post by JP Rangaswami.

Purpose

I remember talking about re-defining of scale at the Dachis Social Business Summit. The thrust of the presentation was that brands could engage consumers at scale only if they use currencies that create value for the user in the context of a shared purpose. I have elaborated it in this post at Medianama. Recently, I saw that Hugh MacLeod has brought it out beautifully here. Simply put

(via)

Possibilities

The purpose need not have one constant rendition. As the landscape changes, a business will need to adapt it to suit changing circumstances. For that, a business needs to understand the possibilities. I saw a very good line in this post about being a maker – the more you work in the future, the less competition you will have. How much into the future a business needs to be working is subjective and depends on its dynamics, but if it doesn’t disrupt itself, someone else will gladly do it for them. (“The Jeff Bezos School of Long-Term Thinking” is a good read in this context)

Platforms

While purpose and possibilities are all good at high altitudes, a business also needs strong operational  platforms to back it up. As organisations scale, I have seen two things that affect agility. One, the processes that are introduced to create efficiency @ scale more often than not, become the goal instead of a means, slowing things down and taking away from actual goals. Two, as processes and manpower increase, silos are created. The good news is that it is easy to see technology platforms bringing more efficiency into processes as well as an iterative way of thinking in the near future. It is already happening in marketing. This, and many other factors are also dictating a consumer experience driven approach and are forcing organisations to break silos. As the entire brand/organisation becomes a platform (read) that regularly revisits its context and purpose in the life of a consumer, ‘everything becomes a node on the network‘

People

HuffPo had a post sometime back, citing Zappos, calling 2014 the year of workplace reinvention. It is interesting to note that parent company Amazon has apparently aped Zappos’ ‘pay to quit’ policy, even as more and more stories about working there being a ‘soul crushing experience‘ are coming out. Meanwhile, the two points it mentioned for this to happen are purpose and trust. These I’d say are the bedrock of culture. It’s intuitive that a workforce mindful of the organisation’s purpose and their role in it would keep an eye out for the business’ possibilities, be ready to work beyond silos towards a great consumer experience, and bring in others who would help the business scale. This, along with purpose, has to be the glue that holds it all together, enabling the organisation to move fast without cracking.

While different sectors are at disparate distances from a radical shift necessitated by technological developments, it is, I think, inevitable. In this fantastic post titled ‘Knowledge is faster than mortar‘, which looks at scale through a different lens, the author makes the point that ‘the old mechanisms don’t fit the new social structure.‘ Old mechanisms were built to scale stability, new ones will have to be built to scale despite instability. Anti-fragile, so to speak. Indeed, we will see many manifestations as existing structures try to adapt – internal mechanisms like Amazon’s 2 pizza rule, consumer facing disaggregation like Facebook that have a corresponding internal wiring, or brands tweaking their 4Ps even further for different contexts. But whatever paths businesses choose, this will hold true

until next time, the fast and the curious

The buzz has been there for quite a while now. To take a few recent examples, JWT’s 100 things to watch in 2011 had at least a couple of obvious manifestations – F-commerce (35), Group Manipulated Pricing (4) and more in terms of enablers and related items. (come to that in a bit) Trendwatching’s May 2011 trend is The F-Factor – “that’s F for friends, fans, followers who influence consumers’ purchasing decisions in ever more sophisticated ways”, in which they classify this further into discovery, rating, feedback, together, and ‘me’, the last one about curation itself becoming a product/service.

There are several technologies that will aid this trend in various capacities. Again, to refer to JWT’s deck everything from Automated Checkins (6) to Micro Businesses (51) NFC (56) to Personal Taste Graphs (67) to Tap To Pay (88) can play a direct or indirect part. Add to this increasing smartphone penetration and its impact on purchasing behaviour (check out a study by Google) and interesting services like Localmind, which uses 4sq check ins and location to help users engage in Q&A, or LocalResponse, that uses tweets and check-in data to create a marketing platform for brands to target consumers in real time. and this is sure to be an interesting space with plenty of $$ involved.

That (obviously) explains why the usual suspects are making strides – Facebook with its check-in deals and Social deals and more importantly increasing the scope and penetration of Connect, Open Graph, Instant Personalisation (though), Google with its Latitude, Offers, expansion of Product Search to more countries (via) and even its fashion shop, Amazon with its new membership-only fashion sales site and so on.

But more than these services, the applications that interest me are from the ‘real’ products that I come across. Levi’s remains one of my favourites. And the one that excited me much was Pepsi’s Social Vending Machine. It allows a user to buy a drink for your friend and add a personal video message while at it. After you provide the friend’s name and number, he receives a text message with a code which he can redeem at the nearest vending machine and watch that video you made. (via) Probably a gawky start, some would say, but think of the potential applications.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJaEVEoEETA

It’s not that there won’t be challenges – privacy is the obvious one. Brands will also have to be careful about their natural tendency for broadcasting and aim to be relevant in time and other contexts. They will also have to integrate offline and online well. But despite these and more that might crop up, I think this will be fun with its synergy with Social CRM and its perspective on the answer to that omnipresent social media ROI question.

Bonus read: Paul Adams on How your customers’ social circles influence what they buy, what they do and where they go

until next time, social bill sharing?

PS: Interestingly, Coke had a friendship machine of its own too

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bj3QLLTFDX8