BRANDMAP (Turkey) entered our lives in October 2015. As a matter of fact, it was anticipated that it would meet the expectations of communication professionals in terms of its contents. However, the contents of the magazine take it one step closer to a “business” magazine. A presentation which will contribute to the decision makers’ visions in every area is now at our disposal. And it happens that I am somewhere in this magazine with my monthly articles! I discussed the concepts of brand and consumption in my article, in the November 2015 issue as you may see below:
“The problem is not that the values are upside down or that someone consumes something; the problem is that he is consumed due to what he consumes.”
Eduardo Galeano
If the relationship between consumers and brands were based only on “trust”, we could be deprived of many products and services in our lives today. For instance, we do not trust insurance companies, but we carry on taking out insurance whether we like it or not. We rant at airline transport companies on social media especially about delays and troubles in ground services, but we carry on flying. Although we know that banks are a “fair-weather friend” and nobody can guarantee that we are going to stay alive, we do not hesitate to get 15-year mortgages.
So, “trust” in the relationship between consumers and brands is actually an emotion with a virtual function. Technology has also entered the picture. There is not even a salesman who talks us round to buying something. We live in a world where the comments made on the Internet by the consumers who have bought / used a brand direct our preferences. We don’t even need to move. We spend money believing that “We can humiliate them on social media if they do anything wrong” in the sub-compartments of our brains!
On the other hand, infusing emotions into the promises of a brand is a tendency of the last decade. The key word is “responsibility”. This word has almost got the seat of honour as a brand promise among our buying preferences. For example, I bought a pair of summer shoes in the past few days. TOMS… The label on the shoes read “Through your purchase, you have provided shoes for a child in need in Africa“. I took the trouble to research how much they were keeping this promise. And I was satisfied with what I found out. They really gave shoes to a child in need through each purchase.
“Don’t buy this jacket!”
I have given the “Don’t buy this jacket” advertisement of Patagonia, a sports and outdoor brand, as an example to responsible brand management for many years. It was something that only self-confident brands could do. It said we trust in the quality of our products. We ensure that they are durable. If our products are in need of repair etc, we can fix them. Their advertisement emphasised that it was more economical than buying a new product or wasting resources such as water, electricity and raw materials.
This self-confidence shows that the brand values make a journey with your own values. So far, it sounds good and pleasant, and it boosts our emotions.
However, there is the other side of the coin. So, what happens if the brands which meet consumers with this responsibility promise disappoint them? For instance, how do the brands which market food including GMO corn syrup or the brands whose labourers go from one hospital to the other due to silicosis since they sandblast denim fabrics of our blue jeans affect our emotions in terms of our buying preferences?
It has been calculated that 8200 litres of water is used to produce an average purse from the time it is a raw material until the time it is offered for sale in a store! When “water” is such a basic problem in our world, where almost two billion people do not have access to drinking water and also that many people cannot meet their needs of basic health and hygiene, what is there to discuss about branded bags – or all the other brands which ignore water consumption?
It looks like a happy medium between brands and emotions/trust will occupy the agenda.
It seems as if we are going through a phase when we expect brands to think, talk and act like people.
“Stains” on Brands
Following the bribery and corruption scandal that broke out in FIFA, everyone had some expectations from the brands which sponsored FIFA. Visa, Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Adidas, Hyundai, Bud etc. How would they position themselves in relation to the legal investigations where the ethical values have clearly been trampled on? The sponsors were messing around until Sepp Blatter was re-elected as FIFA President for a fifth term. Of course, nobody was pleaded “guilty”. However, the truth was that something smelt “fishy”. It could be only a matter of time as the sponsors of FIFA reeked of that “fishy” smell.
Can these global brands see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil in case of such situations? It becomes obvious whether a brand has come to an end or not in these kinds of context. We would like to see that brands do not come to an end against the basic values. Jeroen Weijermars, a professor in Johan Cruyff University in Amsterdam, is one of the first people to be disappointed about this issue. Weijermars thinks that this incident and similar incidents could be prevented if the brands which sponsor FIFA took an attitude. He says “We can say that the sponsors might be concerned that their competitors would replace them if they withdrew their support, but there is a corporation with ethical problems here. Therefore, it is a pointless concern.”
The days go by with a code of conduct where the consumer has turned its mind share into a charge account and where the brands enter their criminal record and registry against our values into this account and, of course, share them through a global medium.
Dave Granlund
The fact that BP was fined 18 billion dollars due to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill surely stays somewhere in this mind share.
Look at the Volkswagen scandal. It seems like it will not make sense no matter how you slice it! Carbon emissions are the biggest reason for global warming. People from near and far are working to find out how to reduce these emissions: scientific reports, laws, regulations, this and that. And one of the biggest automobile manufacturers of the world uploads software which shows high carbon emissions low onto their vehicles. Their brand promise suddenly turns into “Nobody can betray your trust better than we do“. They teach a lesson in “how not to become a brand” not only to the brands in their industry but to all the other brands.
A similar incident occurred in Siemens in 2008. The brand, which got involved in affairs such as bribery, corruption and abuse in order to win overseas tenders, inflicted a deep wound not only upon itself but also upon the reputation of German brands. And now Volkswagen. Don’t you ask yourself “What is happening to this brand made in Germany”?
Guilty Brands – Guilt-free Brands
Guilty brands! Guilty products… I saw the concept in an interview with Jo Fairley, the co-founder of Green & Black’s Chocolate, for the first time. The essence of trust crisis between brands and consumers is that these brands perform on the basis of affairs which will not appeal to the society. Brands commit a “crime” in some way from raw material sourcing to marketing activities. They are not petty crimes. They deserve severe penalties!
Green & Black’s, which have paved the way for the concept of fair trade, have grown the seeds of trust in an area that a great deal of brands may not appreciate – yet. We are trying to rebuild the bridge of “trust” between brands and consumers on the basis of human beings’ longing for the basic principles behind this concept. “Guilty brands” versus “our guilt-free brands”!
Brands are coming to an end whereas stories are becoming brands!
Ojarna is a simple, ordinary, but “ambitious” brand. It looks like the ambassador of a mission. Last summer, it offered its products to the consumers with a makeshift decoration in a central part of Alacati. It was plain and natural, and had a “precious” set-up surrounded by simplicity. Ojarna is an experimental project. It describes the local cultures, the tribes and the world of travellers through “handmade” clothes and jewellery in all four corners of the world. In fact, Ojarna tells its consumers “stories“. It draws inspiration from cultural anthropology, religion and beliefs. It embraces “traditions and handicrafts” which are about to become extinct or which have lost their significance in the pace of modern life. In fact, it embraces the producers of these things. It cares about ethical business relations and natural integrity. Each consumer spends an average of one hour in Ojarna when they go there for shopping. They listen to the stories behind each object. They share the happiness of the producers of these objects. They don’t buy the objects, but the stories.
Just like the CCC project. Clean Clothes Campaign. Of course, if you think it is important to get information about the production conditions of the clothes and shoes you wear… What kind of a place were they produced in? Under what conditions? Oh dear! I hope the clothes that we put on looking in a mirror to see whether they suit us do not come from a dusty factory where children work for 16 hours a day although they should be studying their lessons at school! A campaign which has had a snowballing effect in Europe has also drawn attention in our country in such a short time. This, again, is like a journey to brands and their stories. (EKOIQ/Turkey October 2015)
Elon Musk, who is just in his forties, points out what brands should pay attention to. Musk, who used to get $1 salary in 2014, is the co-founder of Tesla Motors. The wide range of business that he manages from space technology to auto production focuses on business models where he has redefined “consumer benefit“. In societies that do not consider the idea of greenhouse cultivation in Mars “absurd”, entrepreneurs and investors can turn their dreams into brands. As Tesla Motors, which caused the world automotive industry to redefine itself.
The stories behind Elon Musk’s enterprises, which might be the answer to the question “What kind of a world are we going to live in?”, evoke the image of a “personal brand” worthy of Tesla’s name.
100-year-old brands
Look at the brands which have turned 100 years old in Turkey. Their “values” show why they have not “come to an end” so far. Haci Sakir, Haci Muhiddin, Haci Abdullah, Ece Ajandasi, Vefa Bozacisi, Eyup Sabri Tuncer, Komili, Hafiz Mustafa, Koska, Uludag, Karaca etc.
When you do not have anything to do, go on the consumer complaint websites on the Internet. Especially on www.sikayetvar.com! You can clearly see how brands are coming to an end there. Frankly, consumers have only a single expectation from brands: “It would be enough if they could keep their promises“. There is a massive outcry on the consumer complaint websites. Those platforms are full of tens of brands which have left aside their brand promises. These brands may formally continue their existence. They still maintain their places on the shelves. They may be happy with their market shares. However, they have unarguably come to an end in their consumers’ minds!
There are financial institutions that give student loans to university students nowadays. They turn these loans into product brands and market them. Aren’t these financial institutions, which see an opening in the market, taking away the futures of thousands of students and their families? Don’t they deserve a front seat among guilty brands? Those students graduate from university with a degree and a debt that they may never be able to pay their entire life because of these loans!
“I don’t trust you, but I buy your products”
“I don’t trust you.”
“I don’t trust you, either.”
“Ok, then we can do business!”
The business model of the insurance industry is based on “distrust” nowadays. It is an area where nobody trusts one another, but where a business volume of billions of dollars is managed. The fact about “the person with the less ratio of trustworthiness” lies behind the nature of competition! We renew our insurance policies every year in this “distrustful” environment whether we like it or not. The system also produces distrust in its subsections. Insurance companies do not trust their experts and agencies, either. There is total chaos when you think of medical insurance specifically.
Years ago, we used to see full-page advertisements of insurance companies in the newspapers. These advertisements read sentences like “Such and such insurance company paid every penny of his insurance holder who suffered great damage due to fire”. In other words, distrust was at such a high level that the insurance companies advertised because they paid for damage which they had to pay for “anyway”!
Try to unsubscribe from a telephone operator or a TV channel that you use. You might witness the stories of brands coming to an end!
New brands behind the wheel
By the end of the 1990s, brands such as Google and Apple took the wheel. They broke taboos one by one. They have become a global “lifestyle” in ten years. Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest etc. made every one of us the owner / writer of a newspaper / TV channel / magazine. We feel a burst of self-confidence which makes us believe that we can manage brands through these media.
In 1980s, the marketing departments or brand managers of the companies managed brands. Now, we live in a time when the person in the street manages brands. Brand management changed hands. There are people around who interfere in everything about what a brand should become, how it should act and what its faults are. They can “make or break” a brand. They sometimes organise campaigns which can affect global investors. These boycotts and campaigns are recorded as a black mark in the history of brands.
Public Eye chooses “the most irresponsible companies and brands” every year. There are around 60 thousand people who use every means in all four corners of the world behind this choice. It might be just a matter of time before brands are examined closely or regulatory organisations take action against these brand owner companies. They can even make the future miserable for some brands!
What do you think Greenpeace, “one of the priceless brands” of the world, owes this value to? Why are the leading consumer brands ready to pay big figures to put their logos next to the Greenpeace logo? But they can’t do it!
On the other hand, we can see the logos of consumer brands next to WWF, the panda. These brands, which support the projects for safeguarding the natural world, undoubtedly play this game according to the rules determined by WWF. In fact, “they win” but how much are they aware of it? Do they think they are sponsoring an ordinary social responsibility project or securing the future of the raw materials that they need for production and that they have to borrow from nature?
In 1980s, brands completed their course from meeting needs, which made capitalism reach its peak in 1950s, to “marketing desires”. The gurus who pontificated about subjects such as brands, advertising and marketing completed their shelf life in those years! They may have bought themselves some extra time. However, we paid the price for the ambition, greed and insatiability that they shared with Wall Street on the basis of their sense of yuppification in 2000s, and we are still paying it globally. They – maybe for now – may not have consumed the brands, but they have consumed themselves and their philosophies.
We are now in a world where the ones that;
- share our values,
- prefer our emotions to money,
- blend creativity and innovation with our expectations,
- care about “the very self” of individuals like a pen-and-ink letter written to a specific person rather than the number of products sold,
- can take responsibility for being a brand,
- can integrate all the areas of this life into the aura of their brand promises can compete.
Because we are consumers, employees, investors, opinion leaders and activists under the same hat!
And when we take off that hat, we are “human“.
Leave a Reply