Friday, September 19, 2008

Karmic Tuesday.

There’s a bar in my neighborhood that’s an interesting little cultural mashup. At first glance, it seems to be an Irish pub. Confusingly, though, it’s run by dour Eastern Europeans. And most perversely of all, it serves just one kind of food: Hamburgers. 35 kinds of them. Times 7 kinds of meat. And 3 kinds of fries (I recommend the yam fries). It’s a simple menu with mind-boggling choice. There is no cheap option, and there is no bottom-of-the-page $35 surf-and-turf selection to impress your date with. Everyone there can afford a hamburger, everyone pays within a buck or two of the same price, and everyone there is having the one they like the best. It was there, last week, that I sat munching my Papa Giorgio burger on bison (with the aforementioned yam fries), watching the financial world implode on cable television.

When you get right down to it, this whole economic mess we’re in right now was caused by people feeling entitled to more and better stuff than they had yet to earn. A toxic stew of entitlement, optimism and selective blindness has driven the world’s economies straight over a cliff. Now we find ourselves watching CNN in horror as capitalism’s sacred shrines fall one after the other, and dazed looking investment bankers stumble up Wall Street carrying cardboard boxes full of their World’s Worst Golfer mugs and photos of the family basset hound. We borrowed and borrowed, and Tuesday finally came.

I blame hip hop.

Okay, not really. But kind of. You see, no cultural force has more potently expressed the American urge to flatten status hierarchies than that one has. Its chosen battleground: Consumption. You can take what you want, the movement seems to argue to those of us who probably don’t really understand it; in fact, you have a social duty to crush elitism by wearing its totems with the maximum possible insouciance. The media directs its digital fire hose at us, spewing images of putative street kids guzzling cognac, wearing couture and driving Bentleys. Serve those highly branded pictures to a society where roughly a third of the population believes they will be rich in their lifetimes anyway, season to taste with the indelible 2001 image of George Bush telling us that shopping is patriotic, et voila: the end of days.

Are brands somehow complicit in any of this? By their existence, I don’t think so. But I do think the people who manage them sometimes are. The paucity of marketing imagination has turned a lot of branded marketing into a process of exploitation dressed up as ‘selling the consumer what he wants’, when in fact the whole idea behind modern branding was supposed to be personal affinity. Offering the consumer what fits. When the discipline of positioning withered with the 1980s, what was left for branding in a lot of categories was a heartlessly binary schema: you, Mr. Consumer, can have the best, or you can settle. Well, that’s an easy choice. Especially when there is no end of easy credit available to fund it. They’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for an Escalade today.

I miss positioning. I miss when a guy could feel pretty good about driving a Buick after graduating from his Chevy, while he waited until he could manage the Caddy. I miss the middle. I miss all the middles that made being Main Street okay instead of a penance. I think the world will be a lot better off when consumers can choose what they like from 35 kinds of good instead of having to publicly declare where they are on the food chain.

And pay for it today.


Anonymous said...

more to the point:

BrandCowboy said...

Branding the bail-out. Now that's a gig I would have relished. But it probably would have ended up going to some management consultant, instead. And we would have ended up with a "vertically integrated, end-to-end, customer-driven, just-in-time consequence minimization solution."

After that whole Charlotte Beers thing, I don't think Washington would trust ad guys for something like this. If Madison Avenue couldn't make the world love America, it's doubtful it could make Main Street love Wall Street. Regardless of the choice of verbs.

Thanks for sharing the piece, a.

Anonymous said...

Decidedly bad timing to be chest-thumping about the success of one's brand? (it had to be said)

BrandCowboy said...

Perhaps, anonymous, you (along with a couple of journalists I could name) should be more critical in your media consumption. Or maybe even just reread your cited article more carefully. Any ING customer in the world should feel pretty good about what was done and what was said by the Dutch government about these guys.

As for timing, I could not disagree more. Banks are about confidence, not just reputationally but systemically. This bank has been among the most resilient in the world to the problems in the system, and a key reason they have remained so strong is their deposit base. They source liquidity from their own franchise. The success of this owes something to the brand, and in turn this adds to the confidence any financial institution needs to continue to operate.

Read the book, if you're not afraid of having your mind changed. When you see the relationship between ING Direct's brand and the business decisions that kept them out of the sub-prime debacle, you might agree that it's a great time to be thumping chests.