Shifting Brand Responsibility
Let me make a suggestion to brand owners in the interests not just of transparency but of greater consumer belief.
NEW THINKING
Let me make a suggestion to brand owners in the interests not just of transparency but of greater consumer belief.
Being non-popular is not the same as being unpopular. Brands that are non-popular are simply not prepared to do whatever it takes to court popular favor. They do their own thing, their own way – and look to attract cult followings via like minds. But brands that have become unpopular have lost likeability. That’s a disturbing development if you’re trying to be liked by as many people as possible.
There was an interesting interview with Bacardi’s CMO Dmitry Ivanov in the Australian marketing magazine Mumbrella last week. He was quick to acknowledge that he “sits in the camp” of those who believe that TV is a medium in decline.
Why do consumers go out and buy a Lotto ticket or take part in brand-run promotions when they know that their chances of winning are so very small? According to Kelly Goldsmith in this article in the Time blogs, it’s not because of what they stand to win, it’s actually because of where consumers focus.
Recently Jan Rijkenberg raised some interesting points in an article in which he questioned the importance, indeed the relevance, of underpinning individual brands with the identities of their corporate owners. It does brands no favors, he suggests, to collectivize them as part of the bigger entity. In so doing, he maintains, they lose their individuality and therefore their specific appeal. It’s a well-argued and reasonable case that cautions against big picture corporate brands overshadowing their...