However, I’ll admit that putting down ‘brand with a worldview’ into a generic framework is a rather challenging. But I have seen quite a few examples – personal experiences as well as larger campaigns – that highlight various aspects of this approach. The new POTUS has in fact, provided quite some fodder for this. Hardly surprising, since his usage of extreme stances contributed majorly to his victory. 

Uber: The recent #DeleteUber campaign, triggered by the company’s response to a taxi strike at JFK airport that was protesting Trump’s immigration ban, showed a glimpse of how Uber is perceived by its customers. Lyft was even able to overtake Uber for the first time in daily app store downloads, though Uber tried some fire fighting by throwing money at the problem. This might have been a blip in the larger scheme of things, however, it mirrors my sentiment. If there was an app that could functionally match Uber, I would switch in a blinkbecause, thanks to conversations with drivers who aren’t treated very well, their callous attitude towards queries, and despite their very agile, local, cause based marketing campaigns, I am quite convinced that the brand’s worldview is “don’t care”.

Starbucks: When Starbucks took a stance and committed to hiring 10000 refugees worldwide, Trump followers began the #BoycottStarbucks campaign. Absolutely polarising stuff, as #DrinkStarbucks also gained momentum, and I saw blog posts such as this coming out in support of the brand. While it might have some repercussions in the short term, I feel the worldview will do more good than harm for the brand in the long run.

If you managed to see the Super Bowl 2017 ads, many of them had political stances either overtly or covertly – Budweiser, AirBnB, Google to name a few. (see) The interesting one though was 84 Lumber, a construction supplies company. Its original ad took a direct swipe at Trump’s Mexican wall but the NFL refused to run it and the company toned it down. But it didn’t end there. Their CEO walked back and not only claimed that it had nothing to do with politics but declared support for Trump’s policy! In terms of worldview, starting a fight you can’t finish is probably worse than not having a stance.

I find these particularly interesting because the stance is related to politics. Society at large has a keener interest because it the brand is actually making a judgment on their voting choices and these actions could potentially have a political impact. There is more column space and interest in this than say, and environmental or worker condition stance. That also means polarisation which would have both immediate and far reaching impact on brand health, revenue etc. A Havas research shows that users want brands to “help on big social issues” (slide 44). The same study shows national identity as a very important consumer sentiment. (slide 15) However, there are nuances and examples in the US that show that many people do not want political lessons from their brands. (Racked has an excellent read on this)

If I try to be objective about this, I think what all this does reiterate is that in our consumption, we are largely irrational creatures, and absolutely prone to confirmation biases. We’d love our brands to echo our world view. Once upon a time, brand research used to be restricted to activity and perceptions/perspectives in the domain. But the worlds are colliding. Smart money would be on brands that can use data to glean consumer sentiment beyond domain, and leverage that understanding when forming a world view.

In my mind, they are related, as brands are making efforts to maintain/create business models that are buffered from current and future shocks and can remain relevant now and later. I found an intersection of the two thoughts in a couple of places. The first was in this post by David Card on new models of  disruption. The first model brought up in this is “Adjacency Platforms”, which is about platforms migrating into new markets or industries. Apple’s iOS moving to payment is the example given here. This thought is also echoed in slides 24-28 of this trends presentation – the phrase used was Startups going ‘Full Stack’. I particularly liked this framing of the thought – It’s not like a brand like Virgin diversifying to follow an audience, it’s diversifying to follow an expertise. Both fantastic approaches, I must say, because they’re based on consumers who believe in the brand’s values. [I believe that Uber is a brand with much potential in this respect – check this]

Strategy to me has always been a series of choices and the tradeoffs therein – to optimise profitability and sustainability. Clarity of values and balancing current and future goals are both part of this. (eg. P&G’s strategy algorithm is a good example of how these choices are framed) Risk assessment has always an integral part in these choices, but the difference, I think, is that in this rapidly changing world, risks of omission (not doing anything) might be more dangerous than risks of commission. (doing something)

My search on how to make effective choices is on, and the first lead I got was from this fantastic interview with Jeff Bezos – regret minimisation. Again, applicable in both personal and business choices. To quote Alfred North Whitehead, “it’s in the business of the future to be dangerous..” and it’s our choices that will decide whether we thrive or decline.

Simulations, testing, analysing data, and quickly adapting are the basics of this approach to marketing. In terms of ‘ingredients’ to play with, I’d still go with the traditional 4Ps of the marketing mix- Product, (includes packaging) Price, Place (I include the internet with Platform) and Promotion, with Purpose being an umbrella addition. The input and the output, I have categorised into business dynamics, using the other favourite marketing letter – C. These are consumer, competition, channel, content and context, and the cohesive narrative that is created. I’m trying to evolve a framework from these, while watching brands actually practice it – with or without a theoretical structure to the approach.

One of the brands I’ve noticed doing a good job using many of these ingredients and the I/O is Uber. That’s despite the recent surge pricing bad press. In fact, I’d see this as an example of their ability and willingness to adapt. In the US, they’ve been honing their craft for a while – free rides for students during the Boston school bus driver strike was the first occurrence I noticed, and then soon after, the delightful hat tip to pop culture on National Cat Day in a tie up with Cheezburger.

They launched in India recently, and true to form, wasted no time in launching the UberSLEIGH during Christmas in Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad –  a tie up with Goonj. From a critical agile marketing evaluation perspective, it would be easy to argue that Christmas is a recurring annual event that brands plan for. But auto-rickshaw strikes are relatively less predictable. A fortnight later, on January 6th, Uber slashed rates by 75% in Bangalore in response to a strike. What is easy to see is the anatomy of an agile strategy. To me, it seems that they are well on their way to developing a flexible marketing framework that helps them take advantage of any variations in the ‘input-output’ factors I’d mentioned earlier – in this case, pricing product and place in response to consumer and context.

Newer brands might have an advantage in developing these frameworks because of minimal ‘baggage’ in their brand philosophy. But then again, the advantage for existing brands might be their existing role in a consumer’s life. Traditionally, brands have attempted to build a unique/distinguishable/identifiable ‘idea’ of itself in the mind of the consumer, with different forms of the promise+identity+attributes+personality framework and (relatively) limited broadcast media options. Iterations cycles were lengthy and included brand tracks and insights which resulted in large campaigns. Several things have changed now. Consumers have shorter attention spans and are increasingly fragmented in their consumption habits. Social platforms have caused brands to cede control over the conversations – any consumer’s experience can potentially create the perception for millions of potential customers. Platforms for reaching the consumer are exploding, and each have their protocols. The potential amount of data from all of this is huge! The challenge for brands is to stay relevant across contexts and create a cohesive narrative, and this requires an evolution in marketing processes. Like I’ve written before, if technology is invading marketing, then perhaps agile – which is a popular approach among that kind – is the way to go!

until next time, sprints and marathons

The ‘tyranny of the big idea‘ is oft discussed here and the more I see platforms evolve, the more I feel the need (for brands) for nuanced strategy and propositions that are relevant in various contexts and take into account the radical change that is two-way communication. (as opposed to broadcast) I think this is an inevitability of consumption fragmentation as well as changes in attitudes/behaviour/expectations, and sustained nuanced propositions is one of the key ways to create ‘network effects’ across platforms.

In this context, I thought the ‘Moving Forward’ section in this insightful post titled “Killing Big Strategy” captured it perfectly. Also, through it, I came across something that helped link the product-brand stories – “Finding the right job for your product“, a fantastic alternate perspective on traditional market segmentation, and some excellent lessons in defining competition and positioning. Not to forget this gem from Drucker “The customer rarely buys what the company thinks it is selling him.”

So where does this all begin? Though ‘purpose’ is increasingly being used as a buzzword  and also espousing a corporate-centric view (unfortunately) I still get to see a lot of relevant literature that does more than lip service. At a broad level, this little framework of Purpose – Delivery – Resonance, for instance, is a good start. There are many needs that brands fulfill and many reasons why they are loved, and these could start as pointers for a brand to figure out its purpose. John Hagel’s “The Untapped Potential of Corporate Narratives” offers some excellent perspective on how user-centric narratives gets several ‘pull’ factors to work in tandem and offer numerous sustainable advantages. The examples include my usual favourite – Nike, and this is a subject I have touched upon earlier as well, (1,2) though not as eloquently. If you think about it, this is also another way of ‘finding the right job for your product’.

(via)

On delivery. Russell Davies’ “Activities not audiences” draws the distinction between users and user needs and calls for focusing on the latter. Again, another rendition of a product doing its ‘job’. This post, titled “Brands: One System Of Touch“, explores the misalignment of brands which view customer experiences in isolation, by channel, whereas customers of course view and grade their experiences cumulatively. This is a good starting point to think about what needs to be changed internally to deliver a cohesive, relevant and useful experience to the consumer.

In the meanwhile, I came across quite a few examples of brands adopting the ‘product doing a job’ approach even though it might be an isolated exercise at this point –  Hermes’ silk knot app, Volkswagen’s and Audi’s Augmented Reality apps to repair/know the features of their cars. While they might seem too self serving to qualify for the concept under discussion, they’re definitely a step in the direction. Uber’s response to a bus driver strike with free rides might be a more evolved example. Another one might be Ford’s platform to ‘hack’ its car hardware and software. Many more examples of ‘branded utility’ can be seen here. I think that in the looming collaborative economy, platforms like Google Helpouts will help brands become a real time utility in their domains.  Interestingly there are also examples of brands (Citi, Kleenex) which are trying to create value beyond their core purpose/utility. Levi’s’ ‘School of Make our mark‘ is another example.

The last bit in the framework (though the framework also mentions differentiation, I see it as something that needs to be built into purpose and delivery) I referred to earlier is resonance. I think these above experiments will not only help brands learn what it takes to build sustained resonance in various consumer contexts but also how to amplify this to potential consumers who might share similar needs. This will require learning and application beyond the conventional mass reach tactics employed currently. The corollary is that measurement paradigms would also need to change. I could see this being aligned to all the points mentioned in this superb post –  ‘The Future of Marketing‘ – messages to experiences, rational to passion, adaptive strategy, simulations, brands to platforms.

To bring it all back to the link between the social product and the brand, I now (again) see technology (including social) as an enabler in the product and marketing road maps – working in tandem to deliver the brand’s purpose and help it augment resonance.

until next time, utilising brands