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.

Dove’s immensely viewed ‘Real Beauty’ video has sparked a parody and many debates including how the content would (or would not) help sales. But what it actually reminded me of was a quote attributed to Marty Neumeier (via)

Brand isn’t what you say about your product, it’s what other people say about your product.

A little reminder that the marketer’s best attempts at defining the user’s perceptions have a chance of failing, especially in the era when everyone is a publisher. Sometime back, I’d read a post on Smashing Magazine which argued that the traditional way of brand building – repetition and consistency – applicable in a time when media options were limited, needs to give way to a playful, adaptive brand that is flexible while keeping intact the core principles. (Oreo is one of the better examples here) It defines the brand as an ecosystem of interactions that embraces different platforms, co-creation with customers and proposes a very interesting method to achieve this – apply the concept of ‘minimum viable product‘ to brand design.

On another front, it was heartening to read that at least some feel that venture capital needs to get serious about brand thinking. Though not in so many words, this post is also in alignment with the concept of brand as an ecosystem and gives several good examples of brands earning the trust of users as well as going beyond their products and services in the positioning. This post uses the phrase ‘Clean Slate Brands‘ to describe new, unknown brands who are using better products/services, radical transparency and ‘open operations’ to compete with, and beat more ‘revered’ brands. (follow the link for examples)

But what happens to established brands? How do they redefine themselves to be relevant in this changing scenario? This led me to think about Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. Do you think that the traditional form of brand building and communication focused on the bottom 2 sections – Physiological, Safety? As products and services become more efficient courtesy technological advances, and functionality becomes a given as opposed to a value proposition, should brand design as a science (and brands that have thus far used the traditional method) realign to focus on the top 3 sections – Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self Actualisation? Think about the cola giants – from thirst to happiness (Coke) and Empathy (Pepsi Refresh) is that what they have been doing?

until next time, a brand’s new story

I recently read Kapil Ohri’s article on afaqs, on the site’s makeover – the shift from blogs and gangs to trends and forums and the ‘mandatory’ buttons – Facebook and Twitter. Its early days, so it’d be unfair to make a comment on the numbers, even if they were to be considered a parameter of success/ failure. But while, on buttons, I think YouTube videos would’ve been a help. More on that in a bit. A revamped GoG, and the Pantene vs Dove war for hairspace being fought offline and on blogs (Karthik, L Bhat) gives me enough food for thought.. and opinion.

Sunsilk Gang of Girls: GoG could have (like an industry person commented on the afaqs post) integrated Facebook in a much better way. Check out what Levi’s has done at their online store. Instead of separate registrations and profile, Facebook’s plugins could make life easier for the user and automatically bring in the ‘gangs’. It could get them to pull their own photos from Facebook for the ‘Makeover Machine’, suggest it to friends, and so on. Or build a Twitter app that uses the display picture. It could have perhaps thought bigger and had their ambassador (Priyanka Chopra?) interact with the users through her own identities on these platforms. Or used a location based tool like Foursquare (or FB Pages or later Google Places) to start building a resource for salons and tips at each place (think of a Burrp! for salons), maybe in sync with a YouTube channel for tips.

Pantene: Good Morning! They obviously missed a little thing when they didn’t pay attention to the pwnage of DNA at the hands of the Times Group during the former’s launch campaign in Mumbai back in 2005 (?), or the more recent Airtel- Reliance DTH fun. Not to mention the cliche that after a certain point, the only person who gets teased is the brand manager. Ok, I won’t overstate, but c’mon this is a real-time era AND they did walk into a Dovetailed ambush. Since the internet already has made them un-mysterious (thanks for that info, Karthik), maybe Pantene should have just added those FB page and Twitter links to their mass media communication, and solved the mystery immediately online. Mind you, thanks to our dismal internet penetration, they could still demystify it again on mass media, later, after perhaps, adding the content from their online and offline activities. (think non market research agency 80%) That way, there would’ve been at least some buffer against a Dove’s sneak attack. Arguable, but possible.

Dove: All of us should take the time and remember the controversy over the ‘campaign for real beauty’. But hey, they saw an opportunity and used it. Effects on long term goals are again arguable.

A little note on ‘low involvement’. I wrote about brands, content and new media platforms in the last post, in the context of the Old Spice campaign, and also mentioned the importance of ‘intent’ and setting objectives. Once the ‘why’ is done, the relevant crowd can be identified, along with the platforms and activation strategies – ‘(to) who’, where and what. (Read Rohit Awasthi’s comment on Karthik’s first post) When the ‘right’ content is pitched to the ‘right’ people at the ‘right’ time (and the ‘right’ platform too), very few categories are low involvement.  (read Naina’s comment on that post) And that’s the beauty of the web in general, and the tools that social media have provided marketers. Old Spice could be seen as low involvement too, until they did this campaign.

But having mostly seen communication as advertising (except arguably PR), creating content for social platforms is in itself quite a challenge for brand managers. Even if they were to  view ‘social’ as ‘media’, it requires a complete realignment of how media and content strategy is done, mostly because the mechanics of distribution are completely different. At a fundamental level, brands are dependent on users of platforms to create a buzz, and money doesn’t always work. At this point, tools can help with the ‘time’ (including location and other contexts) and ‘people’ (interest), and the way it works, if the ‘content’ is done right, people will get other people.

Therefore brand managers need to make a more diligent effort. The fragmentation of traditional media does not seem to have made much of an impact on the costs involved in using them as distribution channels. So when ‘social media’  presents ‘free’ channels, brand managers see a value proposition and jump right in with a TVC and or/other weapons of mass mediocrity. Brands, I believe, need to invest a bit more on who they’re trying to reach, and then invest some more on building content and designing networks and constructs (irrespective of platform) that will drive the crowd to interact with the content and share it more. Content and people that will drive more connections, and help meet everyone’s objectives.

But yes, until Augmented Reality allows me to scan a shampoo and tell me how many of my friends liked it, and think I should use it, (though my hair won’t last that long ) lets keep playing all the shampoo games we can play. And while on using social platforms purely with a sales objective, I’m reminded of how Grandma uses her laptop. (vid below) Can it be used for those purposes? Of course! But is that its best case use? We can argue

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg6emajJmEo

until next time, sometimes brand strategies can be real poo!!

In essence, it reiterates the decline of one way communication, consumer participation, of brands being ‘deeper’ than the marketing that is done for them. But it was good to hear it from a leading FMCG corporate. The most interesting part of the article for me, however, was this, from the author of the post

Social media is not a strategy. You need to understand it, and you’ll need to deploy it as a tactic. But remember that the social graph just makes it even more important that you have a good product. Put another way: The volume and quality of your earned media will be directly proportional to the impact and quality of your product and ideas.

I think that nails it. All this while I was considering social media as strategy. Now I think its more than that – its something that will make the organisation really focus on what they’re delivering to their consumers, how they are doing it – not just from a delivery platform/operations pov, but also from how socially and environmentally conscious and responsible they have been. In Mr.Clift’s words “enlightened self interest”. The ways and means of communication – brand advertising, promotions, PR etc, will follow much later.

Meanwhile, the Marketing Pilgrim asks an interesting question – does social media really have the pulse of the people? It cites the Johnson & Johnson Motrin ads that had raised the hackles of mom bloggers a while ago, and caused them to remove the ad. Apparently a research was done later that threw up some interesting stats – 90% of women had never seen the ad, and when they did see it, 45% liked it. It also speaks of the Skittles – Twitter experiment, and a research in which only 6% of 300 people sampled had heard about it. Those on Twitter would’ve heard about both these, but the Pilgrim asks whether these voices resemble those outside at all, and how much of influence do they have outside.

I, for one, still think social media is a good microcosm of the real world. It does give varied perspectives, and the key is in evaluating the perspectives, digging further where required, and deciding on a course of action that fits larger objectives, and not knee jerk reactions. Wonder if there would have been different results if J&J and Skittles had attempted to carry the community along in their efforts.

But the bigger opportunity, I have always felt is that it allows brands to experiment with segmentation. On one hand, the net allows extremely targeted communication to a core segment, and on the other hand, cheaper distribution allows the brand to also communicate with different segments of the long tail of consumers. It means that brands can play different roles according to the consumer’s interests, and varying with the context, by tweaking its communication, even while sticking to its core objectives. There are new monitoring tools being developed that will aid of this.

Most importantly, it allows brands to find evangelists in each segment and work with them to improve and communicate. Consumers who find a product interesting and appealing will communicate it on their own, adding their perspective and giving a human touch of ‘interestingness’. I’m increasingly seeing posts about marketing ideas that have differed from the norm – Penguin India’s ‘Blog a Penguin India Classic’, which I wouldn’t know about if Karthik didn’t mention it on Twitter or his blog (though I do think they could’ve done it better by using social reading lists like Visual Bookshelf – on Facebook as an app too, Shelfari etc to reach Penguin readers – can easily find that through book titles), product placement ideas for Nestle evolving from the “Mad Men” on Twitter. Cisco’s comic book experiments via Chris Brogan’s post (Webex in Marvel Comics), and Kara Swisher on All Things Digital ( The Realm, an entire comic series). All appealed to me as a marketer, and one as a bibliophile too. Social media is not one thing – the channels vary in audience, kinds of interaction etc – Facebook, Twitter, You Tube all allow new ideas ( I thought Volvo’s Twitter stream inside a YouTube banner ad was very interesting) and fresh engagement rules, and ways to break advertising and brand communication stereotypes.

I wonder about the role of strategy in a social media landscape where many things are still unfamiliar. The standards, processes and even objectives are in most cases, hazy, and evolution is happening on a regular basis. In such a scenario, perhaps organisations should first take a long look at themselves and their customers – current and potential, and start by setting goals that go beyond social media.

until next time, lab time

Bonus Reads: Social Media tools popular among marketers (via Digital Inspiration)