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.

Time: The cycles of brand building have been massively reduced. This is not a 2010 phenomenon, but to give you some perspective, in that year Flipkart was just venturing beyond books and hardly the well known brand it is now. Zomato was a ‘promising startup’ according to a list made by the Smart Techie magazine and had just expanded beyond a single city. The flip side is that some of the other startups in that list no longer exist. AlooTechie, which reported this, also does not exist. I had a Nokia E series phone then, and they are pretty much a non entity now. In short, that word – change, and it’s faster than ever! It is said that brands get built over time, but do business cycles allow that liberty now?

Geography: A cliche used frequently is “Geography is history”, but a little incident reminded me that it may not altogether be true. One of the regular conversations these days is around taxi rentals and Uber is a favourite among many of my friends. I casually asked them whether they knew of the heavy rap Uber was getting in the US for remarks allegedly made by a senior VP. (alternate perspective) They didn’t, and it isn’t as though they don’t consume news online. They missed it amidst all the ‘noise’. While a brand may be global, how much does its international stature impact regional preferences, even in this hyper connected era?

Perception Transience: One of my favourite definitions of brand had been “a brand is a promise” Another favourite topic of discussion in the recent past has been the ‘failure’ of Flipkart’s Big Billion Day. Funnily, not only do most people not remember (say) Snapdeal’s campaign around the same time, their usage of Flipkart is also unlikely to stop despite a bad experience. Perception, it would seem, is transient, and also dependent on the value being provided to a consumer at a point in time. What does that do to what the brand stands for?

Context: From a few media platforms and actual consumer experiences to a multitude of channels and consumers as publishers, there has been a sea change in a span of a few years! (Was there a social media job in 2010?) Iteration cycles in brand planning exercises are increasingly getting crunched and while technology and data are theoretically providing profound new ways to understand the consumer and personalise brand experiences, unfortunately for the marketer technology cycles on the consumer side and those on the tools/processes on the marketing side are two different things. That has meant that brand marketers have had difficulty in providing even consistency in experience across consumer contexts, let alone cohesion. (consistency vs cohesion) Additional contexts and platforms also lead to an extended ecosystem and partners beyond the standard media, advertising and digital agencies. We are arguably moving from that one big idea to finding incremental benefits from multiple touch points. How does a brand even begin to plan for all this?

Having said all that, I think the fundamentals remain the same. Technology allows marketers a load of contexts and information on a consumer and his/her preferences. Whether we simply use that as a better way to target our push messaging or do we use it to create a fulfilling experience for the consumer and form a relationship is what will define the brand marketer.

(via)

It’s not really an original thought, since I’ve seen at least one fashion brand use hashtags on  Instagram and Twitter to generate photos, but that doesn’t really take away anything, since the execution is extremely good.

I wrote about the reemergence of branded content last week. One way is to create your own content, the scalability of which is debatable, unless that is one of the organisation’s core competency and priority. The other way is curation. Like I have mentioned on the blog before, curation is a great way for brands to engage with content producers and at the same time, provide  great content to those who consume it. It’s not really creation vs curation, but more of their respective share in the strategy.

On the execution front, crowdsourcing works best if you make it as easy as possible for the for the content producer. In Zomato’s case, adding a #zomato to the food snaps I load on Instagram is hardly a task. The simpler the task is, and the more it is an add-on behaviour than a new one, the lesser the need for incentive. The cooler it is, the more people would want to be a part of it. It distributes itself.

In a traditional media dominated era, more money was spent on distribution than creation. Now content is marketing and with owned platforms, and earned and ‘sponsored’ media on social platforms, the costs of distribution have fallen. There’s a lot being written about content strategy for brands from a creation perspective, but the costs of distribution fall even further in curation because content creators would want to show off their work. The hope is that brands will spend at least a part of the money they’re saving, into creating platforms, processes, tools etc that make it easy for the user to create and share ‘branded’ content.

until next time, co-curation is for later