branding-by-dorsf18-blog

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

Managing an emotional relationship in the world of social media

Based on the word cloud above from the mission statements of 20 companies including AirBnB, Chipotle, Microsoft and Apple, my takeaway is that brands are indeed finding ways to speak to the human elements of marketing. The entanglement of brands with what people talk and think about i.e. their emotions means that brands should pay more attention to making and strengthening those connections. Words like people, possible, better, accessible, dedication and happy certainly evoke more positive than negative emotions. But should this be at the peril of advertising? It seems traditional advertising has been replaced by this newer concept of Social Media Marketing. There is certainly a shift in marketing spend from traditional to digital.

The graph below from MarketingCharts.com shows that social media and content marketing is where companies are spending more money with traditional i.e. prints, tv and radio aren’t even on the graph. In fact, social media marketing and search engine optimization have the best return on investment.

In the world of social media, it is not exact science that content results in emotional reactions. In fact, the article Why brands should care about emotion on social media(http://adage.com/article/turner-ignite/brands-emotion-social-media/312881/)

argues that although we are now in the emotion business, creating content that evokes emotion is easier said than done. Further, quantity of content does not necessarily translate to more emotions. A brand really needs to target positiveemotional connection that will result in more shares of the content which will in turn better brand awareness.

And what do brands do when the emotional connection goes awry? Fast reaction is important. A genuine apology ad an attempt to turn the negative buzz into a positive one could salvage some of that brand relationship.

It also means that brands should now, more than ever, really try to stay true to their promises. An emotional relationship, means trust is at the core and is likely to lead to more transactions if done right.  

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

Are nudges by brands to make their product more appealing really valuable teachable moments?

When I think of culture, I think of something that is hard to decipher or in some cases would rather be ignored in the business world. It reminds me of the social identity theory from the class a few weeks ago. Humans categorize everything they see along the lines of in group/like me or out-group/not like me. If culture is the thing that symbolizes social associations, how can brands use culture to make their products more appealing and what responsibility do they have when they do that? The tension for me is whether the nudge can be used for greater good/ social benefit versus a tool that helps a company’s bottom line. Whose responsibility is it to challenge the not so great aspects of culture anyway?

On the one hand, even if the big brands stop advertising the so called bad products, the other players in the market will fill that gap, in some cases in even more dangerous ways. Take for example the elderly woman I spoke to in a market in Dakar, Senegal. When I asked her why she kept selling her homemade bleaching concoction she answered, “because all these younger women want it”. What’s in it?, I inquired further.  “A lot of things, I can’t even tell you! We have to teach them [the younger women] that they do not need this.”

I believe that nudge by companies that are aware of the negative impacts their brands have on people could be part of that teaching or challenging a cultural norm that does not serve anyone. But then again, who is to say what moral responsibilities these companies hold? Regulation could help steer them and ensure the right messages are taught in the process. I would argue that the brands themselves should encourage responsible consumption/use of their products. The SMOKING KILLS, ever so loud and clear on cigarette boxes comes to mind. Could Unilever and others be mandated to write SKIN LIGHTENING CAUSES CANCER or maybe even SKIN LIGHTENING TAKES AWAY YOUR NATURAL BEAUTY on their packaging?

I found it interesting that Dove was mentioned in the case in an opposite view from Fair and Lovely. I couldn’t help but think of the now famous racist Dove ad – the controversial advert in which it appears as though a Dove soap turned a black woman into a white woman. Following the black woman in the infamous ad wrote an article in the Guardian which can be found here. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/10/i-am-woman-racist-dove-ad-not-a-victim

She expressed “There is definitely something to be said here about how advertisers need to look beyond the surface and consider the impact their images may have, specifically when it comes to marginalized groups of women.”

I definitely agree with that sentiment.

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

When straddling between luxury and fashion, how do you maintain the integrity of a brand

While reading the Burberry case, I began to wonder what luxury really means. To me the Burberry check, whether real or counterfeit seems too ubiquitous to be considered luxury. I found this definition, according to a LinkedIn article by James Roumeliotis quite interesting:

“A luxury brand is very expensive, exclusive and very rare – not meant for everyone. When it ceases to be these things, then it’s lost its exclusive cachet. Commoditizing luxury brands and making them more accessible to the middle market puts them at risk of becoming ordinary, common and less desirable. And the more available a brand is, the less luxurious it becomes.”

He further suggests a litmus test, which I have conducted below for Burberry.

Is the product manufactured in artificially limited quantities?

This was not very clear but does not seem to be true for Burberry.

Does the firm have a story to tell? (i.e. history & pedigree)

The history of Burberry, particularly being the uniform for the British army and then the crossover of the trench coat to Hollywood in the 1900s is quite iconic.

Is the firm portraying a unique lifestyle?

The Burberry lifestyle seems quite accessible and not overly unique.

Is craftsmanship the hallmark, which delivers products that only High Net Worth individuals (HNWI/UHNWI) can purchase without question?

With the classic Heritage trench coat selling for around $2000+, Burberry remains an aspirational brand for most. The craftsmanship is very important and superior and heavily protected.  

Does the brand offer authenticity?

The check is so clearly Burberry that everyone who tries to do something similar will look like they are just copying this brand. It does not stray too far from its core identity and seems to still have a place of innovation through its classics disrupted category.  The model featured on the website personifies a disruption of the classics.

Photo from Burberry.com

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

When straddling between luxury and fashion, how do you maintain the integrity of a brand?

When reading the Burberry case, I was beginning to wonder what luxury really means. To me the Burberry check, whether real or counterfeit seems too ubiquitous to be considered luxury. I found this description according to a LinkedIn article by James Roumeliotis quite interesting:

“A luxury brand is very expensive, exclusive and very rare – not meant for everyone. When it ceases to be these things, then it’s lost its exclusive cachet. Commoditizing luxury brands and making them more accessible to the middle market puts them at risk of becoming ordinary, common and less desirable. And the more available a brand is, the less luxurious it becomes.”

He further suggests a litmus test, which I have conducted below for Burberry.

Is the product manufactured in artificially limited quantities?

This was not very clear but does not seem to be true for Burberry.

Does the firm have a story to tell? (i.e. history & pedigree)

The history of Burberry, particularly being the uniform for the British army and then the crossover of the trench coat to Hollywood in the 1900s is quite iconic.

Is the firm portraying a unique lifestyle?

The Burberry lifestyle seems quite accessible and not overly unique.

Is craftsmanship the hallmark, which delivers products that only High Net Worth individuals (HNWI/UHNWI) can purchase without question?

With the classic Heritage trench coat selling for around $2000+, Burberry remains an aspirational brand for most. The craftsmanship is very important and superior and heavily protected.  

Does the brand offer authenticity?

The check is so clearly Burberry that everyone who tries to do something similar will look like they are just copying this brand. Burberry does not stray too far from its core identity and seems to still have a place of innovation through its classics disrupted category.  The model featured on the website personifies a disruption of the classics.

Connecting this to the lecture earlier this week, Burberry seems to be adding energy to the brand through extensions and some updates to its advertising. It is still unclear to me how it can both cater to its core customers while also appealing to the younger generation that can shop at Target all the way to the luxury retailers.

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

Antioxidant rich, and beyond that?

As an aspiring wine connoisseur, I was baffled when I realized the many misconceptions about wine and its consumption. A few years back, I was invited to a high net worth clients’ home for dinner. The dinner invite came with “my husband is an expert in wine tasting expert so the whole night will be a lesson”.  A night with a real connoisseur? I was pumped! I thought this was my chance to finally taste that $200+ wine. 

What I got out from this was that basically wine quality could be likened to a normal distribution. Most wines fall in the middle and are good. A few are terrible and a few are really worth the big dollars. He basically trumped my commonly held beliefs and made me feel better about my cheap wine consumption habits. What he said, in a nutshell was:

i)              any bottle between $15-30 was actually really good wine.

ii)             cork vs screw top was not a reflection of the quality of wine

iii)           the indent or punt at the base did not signal low quality, contrary to what I had heard before.

I realized then that serve for the speciality vintage wines, the wine industry was pretty much a marketing gimmick. Since then, I have progressed in my own understanding and learning through wine tours and wine clubs and refined the types of grapes I prefer and therefore choose wine on that basis. And every now and again, I will shamelessly enjoy a rose!

[branding-by-dorsf18-blog]

Corona, with lime

Corona is true to its Mexican heritage and evokes the emotion of fun, friends and family wheres Heineken seems to be more focused on functionality of the brand. Even the packaging and the advertising evokes different emotions. This could be one of Heineken’s vulnerabilities. There is an opportunity to add emotions to the functionality appearance.

#2018MITSloanBrandingB