Allen Solly, Sony Bravia, ABVP, Brand Proposition, and Millennial Generation

What do the following mean?

# FLEXIBLE

‘Respect every colour’

Denotatively the word ‘flexible ‘means ‘capable of bending easily without breaking’. In order to interpret the second statement (‘respect every colour’) let’s explore meaning of its components on  the dimension know as syntagmatic axis. These are three words chained together to form the sentence.  Their dictionary meanings are as follows:

• Respect- cherish, admiration, deference, honor, value and revere
• Every- all individuals, each and every
• Colour- hue, shade, tint, tone and tinge

Now if I ask you to tell me their meaning.  In all probability the answer would be there is nothing to give, it is very obvious.  The flexibility is a characteristic of a material. And the second statement gives a call to treat all shades of paints or colours as equal.  These are headlines of two brands, Allen Solly and Bravia (Sony).  Let us delve into their meanings at deeper level.

In case of Allen Solley, the brand apparently seeks to lure customers by the promise of ‘flexibility’ that stems from the use of materials which enhance wear comfort.  The built in flexibility of a chino would allow its wearer to perform different jobs with ease.  It is an important benefit.

But does it give sustainable differentiation? The fabrics and stitching can easily be copied.  Then how does the brand connect with its young millennial consumers? In order to be valuable, brands must make sense beyond surface attributes and forge connections at deeper level. One such method is to add value by relating the brand with consumer values.  Values are  life guiding beliefs that define a person in terms of what he or she stands for.

So what does ‘flexibility’ means from a person’s perspective? It denotes a particular kind of personality as someone who is not rigid, unyielding and adamant. Flexibility can also mean accommodating attitude and not having a worldview that hardliners have.  Flexibility in this sense conveys a lot about the millennial mindset who show tolerance to dissent and are open to rational persuasion. They are flexible and do not side with extreme binaries. They are pragmatic in their approach to things in life. This meaning operates at second level of signification.

In case of Bravia, the headline- ‘Respect every colour’ makes sense only when it is seen through larger socio-cultural space. The meaning is hidden in the world ‘colour’  The word colour in an indirect sense may signify race, religion, caste or other social categories and hidden power asymmetry. The most obvious categories that come to mind are white and black people.  The usage of the word ‘colour’ in a television’s context is very obvious. It conveys that the television does not discriminate between colours and produces high quality images on screen.  But this is not the actual message. The brand seeks to forge a meaningful relationship at the psychological level.

The brand stands for the ideals of equality and non-discrimination.  It conveys its position against prejudices and biases plague society.  The millennial mind set is not committed to binaries that have been perpetuated by orthodoxy that find expressions   gender roles, religious and social practices.

The newspapers on this Sunday carried the ads of Allen Solley and Bravia but what made me ponder over was another news item  (HT Sept 4, 2017) which went like: ‘ABVP routed in student body polls: chips down for RSS backed student body as they perform poorly in Hyderabad, Guwahati and Punjab universities’.

The writing is on the wall. The narrative of BJP and ABVP is not resonating with the youth. It is time to revisit the values that it wants to stand for before it is too late.

Market, value, boundary spanners and power shift

Marketing is described in many ways including as a boundary spanning function. Marketing operates at a point where the boundary of a firm ends and market boundary begins. There is not guarantee that these two boundaries would automatically intersect with each other. It is the supreme job of marketing to make business and market meet and intersect.  Without an intersection there is unlikely to be any exchange and hence value creation.

In the old times of regulated economies and restricted supply the marketing equation was tilted in favor of suppliers. Back then consumers chased goods. Consider when brands like Bajaj, Hindustan Motors, DCM and Lifebuoy enjoyed unbridled power over their consumers. The markets/ consumer pushed themselves towards marketers. Marketing was an effortless game. Later with the adoption of pro-competition ideology industries were liberalized. This began to spoil the game for incumbent players. In competitive regime consumers don’t seek goods, rather marketers seek them. Consumers need to be pulled and attracted. Too much supply chases too few consumers. Competition strips marketers of their power. Market players win by reducing consumer’s choice set. But competition does the opposite, it expands it. The perceived similarity between Samsung, LF, Toshiba and Sony renders these companies powerless. Now the power to give sustenance stands shifted to consumers. The challenge is how to recapture it and achieve dominance of consumer.

The question arises, what are the sources of power? Power literally means ability to influence or direct behavior of others. In a marketing situation, every firm dreams of wielding power over its consumers so that they buy, buy more, buy regularly, and pay premium for its products. Alvin Toffler in his book Power Shift discusses three sources of power: violence (physical muscle based power), wealth (money-stored time and action) and knowledge (with this both other types of powers can be obtained). What source of power should a firm plug into to gain market power?

All the three sources of powers exist in a business system but it all depends upon the top management which source of power a firm plugs into. The source of muscle or violence power is likely to be production because it controls maximum number of people and physical resources. The wealth power rests with finance (money is power culture or money is most important resource and goal). It is because of their power these two departments often enjoy major sway in decision process. Firms differ in their orientations depending upon which department dominates or drives decision dynamics. Finance and production heads were once considered to be the most influential positions for their assumed significance. They derived their strength from their control over traditional sources of power that stemmed from muscle/violence/ wealth. This was in sync with the realities of agrarian and industrial economy. However environment over time has undergone subtle but profound change. The issue is can business survive by remaining plugged into same source of power in future?   

The businesses and products/ value prima facie appear same as before. But observe minutely, they are in reality not. Both supply and demand side of marketing equation have changed. The mass markets have transformed into smaller segments, niches and micro segments. Mass production with big factories, assembly lines and larger production runs are replaced by flexible and customized production. The concept of big large corporation with one production location have taken shape of hollow organization or networked systems. Unlike the past, the value is now co-created with consumer’s active involvement in product design and production processes. Have these developments altered the hierarchy of power sources in business or their effectiveness stands changed?

These changes on the demand and supply side have made the boundary spanning (information gathering and dissemination) the most important function. The stability of the environment has vanished. Present is usually not a linear extension of past. Things happen sudden and fast. Accordingly, businesses need to be as flexible and fast. This demands discovering and developing the core and shedding the non-core. Organizations therefore are now becoming ‘plug in-plug out systems’. They are coalitions of creators with one in lead role. Information is core to such system. Consider sports shoe companies like Nike and Reebok. Both of these names lead networks. They focus on the most critical value adding activity- design- and the rest is outsourced. Explore how much of a car is actually produced by the company whose badge it displays. A computer on your desktop is a fruit of collaboration.  

What value to create depends entirely upon knowledge & insights of consumer trends and micro movements in tastes and preferences? It is here the role of boundary spanners-marketing department- becomes critical. Marketing is the source of knowledge and if knowledge is the ultimate form of power then it must be brought to the centre of value creation edifice. Marketing (voice of consumer) in other words should dictate what business a business enterprise should be in. But this is not easy to achieve. It is not easy for a department which neither controls material/men nor wealth (traditional source of powers) to assume organization driving role.

Production and wealth is free floating resources. China has become the factory of the world and investment bankers chase good idea. Knowledge is the ultimate source of power-business power. So if a business is not performing well find out whether you are still plugged into old source of power. Instead of drawing more power from the old ineffective source, get plugged into new effective source of power. ‘Right’ is better than ‘more’.

Coke, Cadbury, Being good, Doing good and Branding

Marketing conjures up images of a salesperson aggressively pushing his products. It is popularly believed that marketing is all about selfishness wherein seller seeks to enrich himself at the cost of consumer. However in last couple of decades marketing practice has evolved and companies have begun to put consumer at the center of their marketing efforts. Accordingly marketing is emerging as a practice directed as satisfying customer or moving them on a higher level of existence (by solving their problems) making profits in the process as a consequence. But his shift of focus on consumer does not liberate marketing from selfishness or self-gain.

 In consumer centric paradigm, what do marketers offer? The marketers are made subservient to goals that consumers pursue or ends that they want to achieve. Consumer needs and wants present spaces on which brands are created. Branding mandate is consumer dictated. A brand cannot be anything other than want its target consumers want it to be. So what do brands offer to their consumers? Brands become agents of the delivery of material wellbeing- consumers’ material existence becomes the areas of focus. Brands position themselves as solutions to their problems emanating from their physiological or psyco-social spaces. Consider: Dove prevents damage to hair or skin; Dettol provides hygiene: Amul makes you healthy; LIC covers risk: MDH makes food tasty; Maggi saves time; Asian paint weatherproofs walls; Cherry shines and protects leather; Airtel connects with the friends; Ceat gives grip on the road; Sansodyne comforts sensitive teeth; Louis Vuitton makes you stand out; iPill gets rid of unwanted pregnancy and Fair & Lovely bestows confidence.

Within the overall imposed needs/wants structure, marketers work out branding strategy. Brands appropriate attributes (Castrol’s synthetic oil/ Vicco contains turmeric) and benefit (Bisleri’s safe to drink, Phillips bulbs saves energy). Mostly branding discourse is narrowly confined to the means and methods of making consumer’s material life better. Brands establish justification by delivering material gains or becoming devices enabling effective negotiation of material world. Rarely do brands tread the non-material or existentialist concerns. It may be due the fact that existentialist aspects do not translate into sound value propositions. May be being good and doing good make good theoretical sense but do not translate into branding opportunities.

Quite contrary to popular branding practice two brands that have taken the branding appeal to a higher existentialist level are Coke and Cadbury Dairy Milk. Both of these brands have been subtly shifting focus away from the product. Products are a physical construction and hence open to deconstruction and reconstruction. Objective differentiators are easy to outmatch. And in a reason based environment more is perceived to be better. Competition based on specifications can degenerate into collective annihilation. It creates dog eat dog situation by narrowing consumer focus on to objective product based criteria.  Therefore better brands develop escape routes by not being ‘more’ rather ‘different’.

Coke had its own share of product focused branding. It for a long period of time it used drink as the center piece of communication (secret formula/ hobble skirt bottle, tingle, taste, fizz, and refreshment). The brand also called itself ‘the real thing’ to suggest that Pepsi is not real or fake. But the question is how far these propositions can take the brand. The larger reality is that the product is nothing more than carbonated water packaged in a bottle albeit with different brand names. When the taste and sensations come close to a narrow threshold, Coke has taken the brand to compete on feeling platform but feeling here is not about activation of bodily senses  rather engagement with higher order consciousness.

Consider the brand communication. Last year the brand ran a campaign. ‘Ummeed wali dhoop sunshine wali aasha’. The core idea was to promote ‘ummeed’ and ‘aasha’ (hope, expectation) about the future. The brand tried to fight an overall sense of hopelessness about the way things are moving in different spheres of life (tomorrow is going to be better). And now ‘haan mein crazy hoon’ campaign takes the concept of happiness (‘open happiness’) from drinking (sensory pleasure- selfish) to doing things that make others happy. There is a shift from getting to giving. It urges people to discover the joy of giving, an appeal to higher order consciousness. The modern combative and overly competitive environment creates a heightened concern for self and a complete disregard for others. Sanity/ logical and mindfulness means concern for the self. But this singular quest for self-betterment/ concern for ‘I’ makes the collective existence hostile/ unlivable. The communication suggests break the rule, be crazy and do something good for others and bring smile on their faces. This kind of craziness (selflessness) is good

Cadbury Dairy Milk brand’s growth trajectory is almost similar to that of Coke’s. The brand sought to establish its legitimacy in the market by focusing on goodness of milk (brand’s logo depicts dairy goodness- milk being poured into the chocolate). This has been attribute based positioning which was necessary to get approval from mothers. Recently the brand took the communication from the literal ‘meetha’ to metaphorical ‘meetha’. It was transformation of the brand from sweet confectionery meant for kids to something that could be enjoyed by adults. The meaning of sweet was reinterpreted (meaning extension by subversion of sensory sweetness to sweet moments- remember cricket ad). The statement ‘Kuch meetha ho jaaye’ is a double layered with two meanings running parallel with each other (sweet occasion and sweet thing). Later brand changed its communication to ‘kuch meethas ho jaye’. With this the brand took upon itself to appeal higher order consciousness by urging people to  become agents of happiness – how small gestures can bring sweetness in relationships (wish your uncle Diwali who you have not spoken to for years).   

The only purpose of life is not to indulge in pleasure for the self. Humans are born with high order consciousness. It is a source of happiness for many. This gives brands an opportunity to forge deeper connections. 

Brands, Consumption, Identity and Fluidity

Consumption is a social phenomenon. It occurs within contextual frame involving a complex interplay between individual and society. Fundamental to the existence and perpetuation of a society is presence of some kind of relationship governing mechanisms. One such mechanism is segregations of people based on some principles. It is common find categorization based on age, income, gender, religion, and caste. Inherent to these categories is power and role structure. Groups exert pressure on their members to conform to a universalized conduct which also include consumption norms. Brands that deviate from the cultural impositions are met with resistance (consider women dress code and choice in Arab nations).  The beliefs, values, attitudes, ideas, roles are culturally determined which in a way prescribe ‘right way’ of being and doing.

Who you are is defined by the group you belong to. This imposes a perimeter within which your consumption/ behavior can move about (e.g. women must adhere to a dress code, officers must wear dipped in starch clothes, young should avoid ‘hot’ food, marry within community). Consumption in such situations takes place within an overall framework imposed upon an individual by the group.  Groups attain stability by regimenting individual behavior. Identity is an imposition rather than a choice. The choice of an individual to experiment with alternative selves depends upon power and cohesion of the group. But with the emergence of new networked and interconnected world a cultural assimilation seem to be taking place. Isolation is a thing of past. Many people criticize this development as cultural imperialism. Physical movement and exposure to alternative ways of existence have empowering effect. Who you are is becoming a matter of choice rather than imposition. It is not only about psychological choice; even the biological self can be bought (gender choice). One of the important questions here is whether consumption is identity determined or vice versa.

What is the role of brands and branding in such a fluid situation? How does this psycho-social experimentation influence branding practice? One such effect has been transformation of physical products into inhabitants of psychological space. As people move beyond their physiology to fashioning their psychological construction in identity search process, consumption is systematically distanced from its primary utility centricity. Brands are now new tools of identity creation and signification. Products are now more about what they mean than what they do. The identity creation project of target customers dictates their mandate. Consider how Lacto calamine ad is more about the user rather than the product, (a girl who forces the driver to reverse the bus so that old waiting couple who could not run could board in). Brands are identity creating tools. Who you are can be played around with by plugging in the symbolic capital that they embody and make available.

Who you are implies who you are similar to and who you are different from.  With the identity becoming fluid tensions seem to be simmering between established and the emergent structure. New groups and coalitions are beginning to challenge the power and legitimacy of old groups. The ideas and ideologies have come under greater scrutiny, the wisdom of which stands challenged.   A friction is  between  traditional-liberal is palpable; women are rebelling against the prevalent mould and seeking greater gender equality; people with alternate sexual orientation want  recognition; youth ‘you only live once’ orientation is militating against the age old mindset. All this is symptomatic of cracks in the established identity structures and new ones are knocking to make an appearance.

Differentiation/distancing: Brands is such a situation accord opportunities to identity creation (you are what you have- brand transfers a meaning to its user). Brands achieve this by a process of differentiation/ distancing and affiliating. At the centre of Veblen’s idea of conspicuous consumption sat drives with a certain class of people differentiate/ distance themselves from others. And this distancing was achieved on the basis of consumption. Certain products and practices are employed to ‘mark’ a class different from others. Is classical music or opera or art appreciation are new devices of distinction? In a city like Delhi when Jaguar ownership ceases accord differentiation, people move to a different category of prestige signifiers- e.g.  What you listen to while driving. Your choice of albums is indicator of exclusivity.  With the emergence of new economically entitled category of distinction marker is shifting. Theme restaurants, clubs, holiday, music, sport and education are used to achieve exclusion. Some of the iconic structure challenging and identity defining products has been bikini, rap music, contraceptives, and jeans.

Affiliating/ belonging: Unlike building identity based on rejection, often people are motivated to maintain their allegiance to an identity group. People with socialistic leanings wear Che Guevara hair style and Lenin beard to communicate affiliation to their political ideology. Consider people wanting to maintain and perpetuate relationship in Apple or Harley Davidson owners group. Here adherence to consumption codes, rites and rituals is essential to acquire identity from the group. In the world of crime Yakuza syndicate expect their members to strictly follow group’s code, rite and rituals. This is also true for tantra/ occult groups. Brands/commodities sometimes develop such strong linkages that they become symbolic icons of a particular group (guitar, tattoo, hair style, and hat). They appropriate some ideology and thereby become reservoir of cultural capital open to be tapped by anyone seeking identity transformation. For instance leather jackets signify Harley culture and body tattooing is about human transformation in to a yakuza.

It is worth pondering how people continually engage in brand acquisition and abandonment in their bid to weave a narrative about themselves.   

Levi Strauss, Growth, Brands and Architecture

Every marketer must walk through market to reach profit goal. Revenue is essential for profit, the surplus left after deducting costs. The revenue goals and profit targets necessitate participation in market or markets. The growth imperative manifests in targets related to market share, sale and profits. Firms pursue their growth differently, a choice involving considerations of horizontal and vertical participation in the market. Branding and brands are important in this context.
Levi Strauss & Co has come a long way since 1873 which invented riveted tough denim wear (‘waist overalls’). The leather patch with an image of two horses pulling the jeans apart was used to demonstrate the pant’s strength. Within the rough jeans wear the company went on to increase its market participation by launching products meant for different segments like ‘Koveralls’ (one piece play wear for children), 501 (made exclusively from 10 oz. red selvage denim), jeans for the ladies by the name of Lady Levi’s, Lighter Blue line (sportswear), Preshrunk and STA-PREST (wrinkle free), wear in corduroy and polyester (to keep up with style changes). This way the brand went on to expand its reach to many jeans consumer segments. In 1996 LVC was introduced based on the reproductions of clothing from the Levi’s Archives. Then came super low waist jeans for women.

In early eighties the Company in an attempt to expand its footprint in upscale dressier clothing market created Levi’s Tailored Classics (LTC) line. The purpose was to tap ready to wear formal wear segment. But the brand failed to appeal to the sense and sensibilities of the target customers. The obvious question was what credibility a hard core denim wear brand has got to offer a classic range of suits which can be picked off the racks. Second if these were tailored then how these are available pre-fabricated off the rack? Levi name did not make sense to this segment and the line was discontinued.

With the progression of time, the concept of dress further fragmented from the binary classes of formal and informal wear. The dress besides operating at the functional level also functions at the symbolic level. A lot about a wearer is expressed by what he or she wears in terms of class, affiliation, personality, attitude and life style. The highly formal dipped in the starch formal clothing was pushed aside by a new generation of entrepreneurs and professionals (25-45 years baby boomers) who were free spirited white collar workers and wanted clothing to reflect their orientation (relaxed not tensed). Dockers brand was introduced in 1986 making company’s foray into what is called Khaki (non denim) market. This sub brand was created to take a plunge into emergent business casual clothing which young people wanted. It was a segment in sandwiched in between highly formal and highly casual jeans wear segments. This brand saw innovation such as StainDefender, Never Iron and Thermal Adapt. The brand was later extended into sunglasses, bed linens, & bath categories.
The Company’s portfolio was further expanded in 2003 with the launch of ‘Signature by Levi’ brand. The idea was to reach out to men, women and children with a product denim and non denim casual range of clothing. In terms of price this was an attempt to capture value conscious customer who aspired to own a Levi. The brand ‘Signature’ sought to appropriate style, quality and fashion and affordability and the words ‘by Levi Strauss’ directly supported it by making an explicit endorsement. Signature promised ‘Superior Fit, Comfort and Style’ to its customers. This move of the certainly allows the company to expand its presence by going out of its top end niche (minimum price 2200 rupees) which contributes to top end metrics like sales and share. But this strategy has its own risks. This kind of reaching out to the lower price points (between Rs. 799 and Rs. 1,499) can harm the mother brand by diluting its equity (exclusivity and class connotations). Titan reached out to economy segment by ‘Sonata’ brand with endorsement coming from ‘Tata’.
Later in 2006, the Company made a course correction by changing the Signature brand into ‘dENiZEN’ this was probably done to protect the Levi brand from potential image dilution harm. The dENiZEN brand was also a response driven by a strategy to fight local brands like Killer and Flying Machine. This brand was slightly differently positioned as a younger brand. In the visual communication ‘dENiZEN’ name stands dominantly out signifying something independent and different which supported by words ‘from Levi’s’. Unlike in its previous avatar as which used the expression either ‘Levi Strauss Signature’ or ‘Signature by Levi Strauss’ the identity of two brands were merged which signified a ‘different kind of Levi’ . But dENiZEN’s branding seeks to reconcile two opposing ends of belongingness and un-belongingness. When one sees the signage of dENiZEN, it signifies there is somebody new and different (denim and non-denim, trendier, young, economy and gender neutral) on the block but it comes from the house of Levis (credibility and trust).
In a new brand consolidation exercise, Levi Strauss & Co is in the process of phasing out its dENiZEN brand from markets other than North America. The Company will instead focus on its core Levi’s brand.

ANNA BRAND: POWER OF SYMBOLS IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION (4)

A brand is a perceived reality. It stands for ‘meaning extracted’ from the symbols disseminated by the sender. Critical to the success of a brand is the clarity and relevance. Brand is a symbol created out of exercise of symbols and symbolism. At the heart of brand building lays ‘meaning transference’. Typically brand strategists employ a variety of messages and media to build a brand but what is crucial to successful brand building is convergence. All signals create a clear brand engram (associative network in the mind). Divergence of associations in the mind is brand killer. Brand name is a sign the meaning of which is created in prospects’ minds. Symbols are instruments in the creation of this sign.
Confusion fails a brand. Anna brand has managed to evoke a phenomenal response. It is a case in the use of symbols. Express verbal communication plays a part in brand building but the dialogue at the subliminal level is more powerful (‘Aankhon Hi Aankhon Mein Ishara ho gaya’;’ Isharon Isharon Mein Dil Lene Wale’). Words convey meaning but symbols do those more powerfully and the beauty is that here communication escapes the scrutiny of cognition. Consider the following symbols and their symbolism which went into building Anna Brand:

• Anna as person: his frail body, cap, simplicity, earthiness, spectacles and his presence against the backdrop of a huge Gandhi banner draws ‘conditioned’ response.
• Anna’s dress: he sports ‘white’ (spotless) as against ‘black’ (blemished). It is ‘clean’ against ‘unclean’. It is ‘day’ against ‘night’.
• Fasting: the term ‘fast’ is positioned against ‘feasting’; ‘self harm’ against ‘harming others’; ‘sacrifice’ against ‘self aggrandizement’; eating is ‘common’ fasting is ‘uncommon’; clearly it positions the powerful in a different lowly light. Fast is the common thread that creates a subtle mental link between Gandhi and Anna.
• Ramlila Ground: ‘ground’ is against ‘high rise’. ‘earthy’ against ‘heavenly’, ‘discomfort’ against ‘comfort’; ‘humble’ against ‘arrogance’.
• Anna Bands: these are tied to biceps indicative of ‘power’, ‘muscle’, ‘courage’ against the aggressor
• Waist Bands: ‘fasten seat belts’ it is difficult time ahead, symbolizes ‘readiness’ ‘preparedness’.
• Tricolor: In Mahabharata the discourse is about under which flag ‘you want to stand’: the right or the wrong. People assembled for the ‘nation’ not for ‘any party or group’, signals ‘unity’ against ‘division’; ‘transcending boundaries’ against ‘created boundaries’; ‘one identity’ against ‘multiple identities’. The flag: ‘higher ideal’ ‘ambition and aspiration’. Flag  held by hands in protests indicates importance and closeness and importance of the ‘goal and ambition’ as against ‘not holding’ or ‘giving up’ or ‘detachment’ (flag erected on ground).
• Anna Cap: cap is headgear; head is house of mind. It symbolizes ‘particular philosophy or thinking’. The cap signifies subscription to ‘Anna thinking’ as against ‘Non Anna thinking’. Why wear cap: because now is the time to clearly show whether one is ‘with Anna’ because government is ‘not with Anna’.
• Candle March: is ‘light’ as against ‘darkness’; ‘day’ versus ‘night’; light is used to ‘scare the creatures of the night’; creatures of night in mythology are demons and evil. Why march- to scare these off. March is movement; it is ‘progression’ as against ‘stagnation’; ‘it is movement towards the goal’.
• Voluntary contribution: to contribute means ‘to be a part of’; ‘efforts made’ ‘share’ as against ‘not be a part of’, ‘no efforts made’. Contribution is required when the task ahead is ‘difficult’ or the opponent is ‘strong and mighty’. It is symbolic of a fight between two unequal: ‘government or establishment’ powerful and mighty. It is an opportunity to be a part of something not within the realm of ‘individual achievement’.
• Raised hands and closed fists: fist symbolizes ‘grit’ ‘determination’ ‘strength’ ‘readiness to fight’ against ‘hands down’, ‘lose’ and ‘open palms’. When the hands are raised in unison upon a chant ‘it is willingness to rise up to a challenge’; ‘team spirit and togetherness’. This raises adrenalin. Fist is to ‘muscle up’ , ‘to collect’. It is ‘to scare birds or crow’ from the field.
• Songs: the music connects to ‘heart’ as against ‘mind’. You don’t ‘think’ music you ‘feel’ music’. Songs and slogans trigger emotions and create bonding. Emotions elicit better commitment than cognitions. Rhythm and rhyme is ‘flow’ ‘movement’.

Collectively these symbols negotiate meaning at a deeper level and create a brand engram to which people seem to be connecting.

 

Products Just Function Brand Needs Purpose

A product is an objective reality. But brand is an entity of the subjective realm. A brand is a product translated. A well defended product inside the marketer’s space can be a defenseless pariah in the crowded world of so called brands. Brands apparently are entities of the physical world but don’t mistake these are only concrete shadows of intangible realties of consumer’s mind. Brand requires concrete investments in creating something abstract and incomprehensible to many but perfectly apprehensible for its target.

It is quite interesting to observe how people shop sports shoes. A shoe meant for sporting activity is a performance enhancing device. It must provide traction, flexibility, cushion, bounce, air, stability and a whole lot of other performance enhancing feature. If this assumption is correct then sport shoe retailing cannot follow the same model followed in leather formal shoe retail. But major companies like Adidas, Nike and Reebok, and Puma adopt almost similar retail format for most of their stores. ‘Performance’ is probably diametrically opposite of ‘looks’. Therefore instead of mirrors the store ideally should have mini courts. But people instead of taking mini trials look into mirrors. How about aesthetic elements the colors, lacing pattern and upper design? Observe people only to find a lot of attention is focused on the ‘looks’ of the shoe. Then conversation between the sales person and potential customer is rarely focused on performance. Is it that a sport shoe ceases to lose its manufacturing logic just as it begins its justification in consumer space?

Often brand building is misconstrued as an exercise in imprinting customer’s mind with images. There is no denying that a brand is indeed imprinted image but imprinting image is no branding. Brands are ‘commissioned’ by customer for some purpose and the product must perform within the constrained imposed by the purpose. It is impossible to think of a product without functionality. Functionality is inherent to a product but often it loses it centrality in its quest for relevance from customer’s perspective. Sometimes even the functionality needs to be adapted or created depending upon what a customer commissions it for. Observe again the customer in a sport shoe store. There is no unanimity customer about what they want these shoes brands to do for them. Sports shoe brands derive their pull from being on the body of top sports achievers but customer commission these for not the same purpose as a player would do. Learning what target customers would like to commission a brand for it key to brand building.

Observe again what customers in the showroom do? They all look, try and buy shoes. Observe again what is happening in their inner world. Customer may want sports shoe because he commissions shoe to protect his joints. Another customer commissions his shoe to help him look cool. One may pick sports shoe to last long. For others it may be the comfort of wear. Sport shoe may also be commissioned to work as formal shoe for certain ‘worker’ jobs. And then there is one who commissions his shoes to help him perform better in court. The differences mentioned above are not to throw light on inter- segment variations rather to focus on intra segment differences in what customers may want a brand to do for them. Brands are launched by the marketers but they are actually created when they become missions in sync with customer vision.

Often marketers improve their products in ways that are irrelevant from customers’ perspective. Hence brands which seek to help customer do irrelevant things better do not help. Christensen, Cook and Hall propose customers hire product to get a specific job done. Therefore the job not the customer should be fundamental unit of analysis. The focus should be on the job that they try to accomplish. Brand’s instrumentality must be established in a job’s context. Consider how Arm & Hammer baking soda was ‘hired’ by customers to do different jobs: to deodorize refrigerator, to whiten teeth, to augment laundry detergent and freeing carpet of smells. A brand must find a purpose for which it will be commissioned by potential customer. It is job that justifies the brand.

What purpose do you commission your sports shoe for? Is it sports or something else? Does the marketer know that?

‘Frankly, my dear, I don’t give it a damn’ and brand is damned!

Last Saturday in an evening party with couple of close friends I discovered marketing is something you can’t escape. A couple of drinks down, two of my friends’ wives shared a common grouse that their husbands don’t have anything to share when they come back. They lock themselves into a kind of cocoon. And then they shared how these guys were different when they had got married. I was reminded of an old Hindi song ‘Unko Yeh Shikayat Hai Ke Hum, Kuch Nahin Kehte (उनको ये शिकायत हैं के हम कुछ नही कहते) Apni To Ye Aadat Hai Ke Hum, Kuch Nahin Kehte” sung by Lata Mangeshkar. But unlike the song here women are troubled by their husbands’ indifference. It could be the other way round also.

Brands also pass through this kind of ups downs in their lives. The initial pre-launch period is a kind of ‘love is in the air’ full of anticipation and positivisms. This is very palpable when a company like Apple announces a launch. Although not on the same scale people do share excitement about any new launch. Consider the recent cases of Etios by Toyota and Reebok True Tone. At somewhat lesser level this romantic anticipation is also felt in not so important product categories like a new detergent powder or a shampoo. This romantic anticipation is followed by consummation. It is said that the ‘proof of the pudding is in the eating’. The initial ‘aha’ begins to undergo a subtle change. The transformation of love into matrimony unleashes a new set of challenges for the brand managers. Matrimony in a social system imposes some kind of barriers to exit from a relationship but this kind of security is not available to a brand. In the marketing context consumers are free to divorce their existing brand partners. It is not only the freedom to quit easily that makes the job of the brand managers difficult but also the ease with the options to flirt can be accessed. Consider how fiercely Samsung Galaxy is trying to woo Apple fans to flirt and enjoy a better experience (‘the greatest smart phone ever’).

Every relationship as someone very philosophically observed is ‘end begun’. To this effect economists’ have their own version of law of diminishing marginal utility. Idiomatic expression ‘familiarly breeds contempt’ has for long warned people of how too much of familiarity with something or somebody sows seeds of dislike. Here brands have a dilemma. A more technical explanation is given by ‘GIAL’ theory which proposes that over familiarity leads to diminished stimulation level throwing the prospect into the zone of boredom. A brand cannot afford to be just an object of desire. The hankering of consumer must be actualized by making him buy and use the brand. This is where sales revenue comes from. In this context a brand is usually positioned at the center of a force field where two opposite forces of familiarity and unfamiliarity create opposite pull. The route to revenue generation passes though familiarity (consumption) but getting stuck on this end leads to cessation of stimulation. But pulling the brand to unfamiliarity can create ‘creeping disconnect’. What sets the long sustaining brands apart from others is precisely this art and science of intelligent negotiation between these mutually conflicting forces.

What did Rhett Butler say to Scarlett O Hara in ‘Gone with the Wind’? The following dialogues between the two capture the essence of consumer reality in modern day marketing:
Scarlett: Rhett… if you go, where shall I go, what shall I do?
Rhett Butler: Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. [Rhett walks off into the fog]
The competition is contributing to increasing customer indifference (‘don’t give a damn’) because of increasing commonness amongst brands. The absence of hooks between the brands is pushing them on to the depths of involvement. The abundance and similarity are two brand killers. Consumers on the other hand psychologically may be turning inward to escape from the high assault environment and thereby becoming less open to new information. This state of low perceived attachment to brand de-generates the market into a commodity game.

Brands thrive when consumers give them a ‘damn’. The essence of competition is commoditization. The challenge of branding is to reverse this process by devising ways to break away from boundaries imposed by commonness. Get the customer to be serious with the brand by challenging his or her notions of stereo typicality. Consider how Dove opened consumers’ eyes to ‘PH’ tests during the time their bar launch. Onida created a big hype by posing a potential air conditioner buyer a question whether he looked at the weight of machine before buying. Colgate posed a direction question ‘does your toothpaste have salt?’ to wake the consumer up out of slumber. Tanishq challenged consumer indifference by introducing karat meters in their showrooms inviting custoemrs to check out the exact caratage of the jewelry bought from family jewelers.

Even James Bond has not remained insulated from growing ‘indifference’. How particular Bond had been to his drink when he always wanted his drink a cocktail of Vodka Martini to be ‘shaken not stirred’. Starting with Sean Connery to Pierce Brosnan in ‘World is Not Enough’. But in the latest flick ‘Casino Royale’ upon being asked by the bar tender whether he would like the drink to be shaken or stirred, Bond replies in an unexpected, ‘Do I look like I give a damn?’

The high pressure environment is making consumer a ‘shut’ system. Open him or her up!

Business as coalition and compulsions of coalition

A firm is an organization for business purpose. Organization in management literature means a unit created made of parts or component by act of bringing them together. It is an act of crating something. What are the parts that typically make a business organization? The parts of an organization are structurally called departments. These include sales, finance, human resources, production, R&D, and procurement. This essentially means organization is a coalition of different groups. Consider the following:
• Mr Human joins the business and he is very clear about the fact that he joins the business for compensation and progression.
• Mr Operations has technical guy who joins the business for making sure that operations run smoothly for longer runs and nothing upsets the production process.
• Mr Finance has had grounding in capital budgeting and cost of capital. He sees success in risk and uncertainty minimization.
• Mr Research has all along been known for his ability to invent. For him the organization is a new laboratory to experiment and create breakthroughs that make headlines.
• Mr Procurement knows it is easier to buy a few things from a small base of friendly suppliers. More suppliers and more number of purchase units upset their lives.
• Mr Engineering brings their design skills and knowhow to create new products and processes but with an eye only for the technical strength.
• Mr Manufacturing wants his production lines run as smoothly as possible. Frequent changes and modifications complicate their system.
• Mr Sales is always keen to convert whatever is given to him in cash by hook or the crook.
On the whole these coalitions making an organization bring different notions of effectiveness. Consequently it is natural for business firm to experience politics of coalition. Each of the coalition partners attempt to pull the entire decision making in the direction that deems fit (see the figure) . The localized effectiveness is pursued at the cost of global effectiveness.

This political way of functioning of business organization undermines the very purpose for which it comes into existence- the business. Business means actualization of a potential exchange with the prospect i.e. the customer. And in a competitive scenario the only way to succeed is to get the customers to say ‘yes’ to what a firm condenses in a product or service. The value offered by a firm is sigma of decisions made by different coalition members. The issue then is what is the probability that target customer would say yes to what firm has done? It is very low because typically none of the coalition groups represent customers. And when the customer pronounces ‘no’ to a firm’s offering the entire system loses because the revenue stream is cut. How can a business survive without its customers responding favorably to what it does? Business survives and prospers when customers open up their wallets for a product or service. Without this a product is an unrecovered cost.
It is in this context the top management is expected to perform a harmonizing role. A coalition is compulsorily likely to have conflicts arising out individualized or localized concepts of effectiveness. Consequently the system would get pulled in different direction readying it for failure. It is akin to making safe cabins in Titanic. People must go out of their cabins and make the Titanic safe. The concept of global ‘right’ or ‘effectiveness’ must be appreciated. A business does right when its products or services win target customers. It must be understood that a firm is an organization of coalition partners for the purpose of business. And business is about actualizing exchange with potential customers which happens organization creates satisfied customer. Therefore converge of goals and roles are essential to survive in a competitive market.

Managing coalition is a challenging task. All the companies which consistently perform well manage to do so by creating goal convergence amidst confusion and chaos. This is reason why only a few managers rise up to the top.

purpose of business

Business Purpose and success
It is a perpetual struggle for business to succeed. But businesses do not succeed automatically. It is for managers and leaders to navigate business in to success. This navigation is not as straight as it may appear. Business requires steering a disparate set of forces towards a common end. Understanding and internalizing this end is a great challenge for the top management.
Words as signs do not contain meaning rather the meaning is extracted by the interpreter. So the context of interpreter assumes importance. It is for this reasons success is defined in very individualized manner. Individually as a member, together as a clique, formally as a group and organizationally as a department the ‘success’ gets defined differently. By and large in a manner that is consistent with the thought process of the interpreter. These differences are bound to occur because the very term organization implies an ‘act of bringing together’ which otherwise would not assemble naturally. Organization is collection of parts which belong to their own turfs or domains. It is this domain context which plays significant role in interpretation process as to what success is. It is therefore there is nothing odd for people and groups in a business to have different perceptions as to what success implies. Some of the common territories in a business are known as marketing, human resources, research & development, finance and so on. Accordingly the concept of success and how it is to be achieved is territorially defined or defined in a context specific way. Take a dip stick survey in your organization to discover the meaning of success across different people and functions. In all probability it would reveal an interesting diversity of interpretations.
Business organization is not an outcome of an act of God. It is a created entity. It is one but it is made of parts. Hence there are two realities associated with organization: the local reality and global reality. And this shapes the perception of purpose. The lack of alignment between these realities makes a business system internally hollow devoid any common convergence of beliefs and actions. The resultant confusion and chaos renders the organization a team minus the members and members minus the team. An organization is an assembly for a purpose which is the rationale and reason of its existence. But that very purpose is misinterpreted by people and departments who actually are assembled to work for collective entity called organizations but end up working for them or for their territories created by the structure. Consequently the system is hijacked by a person or a group that emerges powerful as against the one legitimate. The hijacking of this kind causes fundamental dislocation of purpose. The organization becomes the means to satisfy a part (or insider). For instance finance may hijack the business into profits maximization or operations may drive it into minimizing costs. For R&D business system may be a platform to make scientific discoveries and human resource department may seek employee welfare. The reality is similar to a team where each player uses the team as a platform to achieve individual success without appreciating the significance of collective success for which they are assembled.
Why did Titanic sink? There are many explanations given to its sinking. Some attribute to ship construction while others blame it on to iceberg. Many others believe it was the poor visibility. But only few would attribute its sinking to the captain. The lure to make the Atlantic journey in the shortest possible time on its first voyage and make the headlines must have been a great pull for the top team including the captain. The purpose then became the headline making by breaking the time record and the means became Titanic and its speed. Is that the reason why Titanic came into existence or the purpose what to safely transport its passengers. In this context the instrumentality of the business organization must be correctly appreciated.
A business is an instrument created to perform a role outside. Poor performance on metrics like sales and profits indicate setting in of irrelevance. It is irrelevant when customers stop doing business with a firm. Like VCRs and typewriters became irrelevant to consumer so have many business firms. Business organizations are created for the role played by them in consumers’ lives. Business stays relevant as long as it plays an uplifting role in customer’s life. It must lift customers from lower states of existence to higher ones. There was a time when GE was promoted by the line ‘we bring good things to life’ and Philips ‘we make things better’. The lack of appreciation of this global role of business makes it vulnerable local pulls. This needs harmonization. It is for this reasons business should be seen from outside from the perspective of the ‘taker’ of its performance- the customer. Let every insider take a look at ‘what a business does and how it does’ wearing a customer centric lens to find out the gaps in perception. The final judge of what is ‘right or correct’ is not inside the business rather outside in the market. The both rights must concur. The disconnection of any kind makes the customer say ‘good bye’ which casts a death spell for business. Let the customer hijack the system not insiders. The business of business is not what managers what it to be rather what customers expect it to be.