The Digital Branding Iron: The Advertization of Me! Pt. 5
Part 5: “Dr. Feelgood”
Brand New Me: Over the Rainbow
What is the most powerful element of brand? It’s the ability to produce “feelgood”. The gifted among us ooze it from their pores; creativity, vision and the know how to wield their power with grace and dexterity. From the very start, the moment a brand comes into existence, its purpose is to make us feel good; even the act of promising makes us feel good and that’s only the brand prelude of what’s to come.
“Feelgood” is a precious, hard to come by and supremely coveted commodity in this day and age. No matter how unbelievable or fleeting it may be, we want it. We’re not fussed as to what flavour it comes in, we just don’t care. Even when “feelgood” comes labelled as perishable, as long as it gives us relief from our crippling insecurities or the banality of modern life, we’ll suck it up without hesitation. Wherever “feelgood” resides we’ll be magnetically drawn toward it. If it resides in a person, a place, a product or an idea, we’ll take out more than our cash to have it, hold it and hope that it’s forever.
Brand faces a new challenge, the growth and evolution of a new, multifaceted digital existence and fragmentation of a once coherent hierarchy of mass social identity. “Feelgood” will be the most likely culprit for the failure of brand creators in their pursuit of the new digital dollar. So, what are the new values of “feelgood” and where are they found?
The real place that “feelgood” resides in is the mind and heart of the brand beholder. Ultimately, brand is an idea in people’s heads but a one trick idea is a flat line for commerce. Currently brands are still screaming churlishly for us to imitate and participate/engage in it, but these are the old ways of swimming in an ever-shrinking broadcast pond. Times are changing and brands need to radically evolve to survive and flourish in a shocking new eco-system of digital diversity. It’s in nobody’s interest to contribute to a festering cesspool of mediocrity. Brand needs to be less of a prima donna-dictator and more of a factory that produces many subtle variations and nuances of meaning under one umbrella. It cannot afford to be dragged down by the pathetic accommodation of obsolete social standards and outdated ideals. Instead, it needs be inventive and find the wherewithal to stand up, stand out and be noticed.
The aim of the game has changed, it’s no longer a matter of conquering hearts and minds, the objective is to become part of those hearts and minds. Brand has a fragile soul and survives on people believing in it. Thus, it needs to make a promise to itself, it needs to promise itself existence. Its longevity lies in making and fulfilling the promise that it will forever remain imaginative for all those that rely on it for meaning. New meaning keeps brand alive, without it the brand dies, vanishing in the blink of an eyelid; a fleeting idea sadly forgotten.
When people covet other people’s feelgood we know why, they go “I want some of what they’ve got”. We need to give them a whole myriad of opportunity for finding what they’ve got in themselves. Brand only needs to uncover what’s already there; examining social hypocrisies and the values that people hide. It is in this clandestine space where we will find the hidden values of what makes people feel really good and exactly what they’re not allowing themselves to express. Social values do not allow people to be “more than” or “less than” those dictates. This is the magic jackpot at the end of the digital rainbow. The key is giving people back the freedom to unshackle themselves from the thoughts that bind them.
Brand is nothing without the actions of its audience to buy into it. Of course, the obvious is often overlooked, the strongest familiarity and affinity will utimately lie within oneself toward oneself; unlocking this is the holy grail of the digital dollar. The new brand of “me” needs to come to the fore and brand needs to aid this development rather than attempt to replace it; otherwise it will fail dismally to compete with our subtle variation and infinite creative diversity. We need to be able to take what we need from brand “ideas” and assimilate it into our own “brand new Me“. Yep, the cat is out of the bag, we’re all different and that difference demands recognition; just as my face is different from yours.
Perhaps surprisingly, it’s actually our individuality that binds us; our ability and also choice to be different. If here, in London, the “rebellious” teenagers are tedious 80′s clones and the couture catwalk brands of the aging rich is the fount of creativity… then the street needs to be cleaned up. Brand needs to offer us a multitude of variety because our social “imaginations” have become our jailers. Being identical is no longer in vogue, it’s old, passé and soo out. A new era of commercially funky and inventive social individuality needs to be instilled in the sheeple soup of boredom. We need to lay claim to the digital world we have created and our existence in it.
May the force be with you my digital friends, as you go forth and create a better world to brand in.
dmojo
-
©Dmojo, 2008-2009.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_a.png?x-id=1b0fd160-7a4f-46ac-862a-c6cb4496e6c9){kind=small}
“Brand only needs to uncover what’s already there; examining social hypocrisies and the values that people hide.”
Good writing, but I find the above a tad unclear. What do you mean by “social hypocrisies?” Do you have an example?
“It is in this clandestine space where we will find the hidden values of what makes people feel really good and exactly what they’re not allowing themselves to express. Social values do not allow people to be “more than” or “less than” those dictates. This is the magic jackpot at the end of the digital rainbow. The key is giving people back the freedom to unshackle themselves from the thoughts that bind them.”
I don’t want to appear prudish, but couldn’t this be accomplished by providing people the opportunity to express themselves in socially deviant ways? Is that something we want brands to facilitate?
Firstly, I don’t quite understand your questions. If you want to provide people with “the opportunity to express themselves in socially deviant ways”, that’s your prerogative! I said nothing about facilitating or expressing “social deviance” that is a huge assumption on your part. I am simply suggesting that we would do well to openly examine social standards, values and norms and evaluate/question their relevance or degree of relevance to us. This kind of enquiry is itself taboo and is strongly discouraged. Brand potentially offers one way of encouraging thought/consideration, dialogue and conversation about such issues.
By “social hypocracies” I generally mean hypocrisy that arises from social pressures that coerce us into behaving in ways that make us profoundly unhappy; actions that without social pressure we may not choose. (I am obviously not referring to actions that harm others e.g. laws that stop us being violent etc). For instance, let’s take a simple hypothetical example, we may feel pressured to be very “wealthy” or “successful” so we spend our life toiling away at a job we hate and are incredibly miserable. The truth is that we actually may be happier with less money but more time to do more fulfilling things. The “social hypocrisy” arises when we put a smile on our face and pretend to be happy about our “wealth” or “success” (which in reality has made us vey unhappy) because a high socal value is placed on being very “wealthy” or “successful”. These are not values of our own but social values we feel coerced and obliged to accept.
There has been a lot of discussion about where we are headed with message creation. I have heard branding being the collective emotional response to a product or service. Your message of “feelgood” is certainly appropriate there. I would say that rather than standing out, businesses and individuals need to focus on how they can serve others and the collective whole. What’s in it for the customer? Trying to stand out says that it’s all about “me”. Our society is more civic in nature. Companies who are authentic and can convey their message authentically will win in this day and age. Being authentic and creating value will serve as the only standout message that you need.
“I said nothing about facilitating or expressing “social deviance” that is a huge assumption on your part.”
I am not sure that is so much of an assumption on my part as a possible conclusion from the position you held in your post, one that cannot be excluded without further explanation. Since you have provided the explanation in your comment, that settles the matter. Thanks.
You’re welcome. I’m glad that I could clear up some of your misunderstandings.
“I would say that rather than standing out, businesses and individuals need to focus on how they can serve others and the collective whole.”
In Dodge v. Ford Motor Company the US Supreme Court expressly ruled that corporations do exist to primarily benefit the community but are organized primarily for the profit of the stockholders. That is ruling case law in the US.
Where serving the “collective whole” can be made profitable, there is no conflict. But that is not to be the corporation’s primary mission.
Where serving the collective whole mitigates profit, then the corporation acts contrary to its charter and established law. So I am not sure that businesses can do what you want in all cases, perhaps not even in most cases. That might be regrettable, but it is a tenacious fact in the US at least.
@ Dana Garrett
You said (in reference to “Brand only needs to uncover what’s already there; examining social hypocrisies and the values that people hide.”):
“Good writing, but I find the above a tad unclear. What do you mean by “social hypocrisies?” Do you have an example?”
“Social hypocrisy”, as I understand it, is the incorporation / accommodation of social values at the expense of our own to the extent that we no longer refer to our conscience for our values, but instead reflexively reference the values and norms of society.
Your “compliment” + “question” quoted above is an interesting example.
I think it’s hypocritical of you to say: “good writing but I found this a tad unclear”. If it’s unclear it’s not good writing. I “found it unclear”, is an indirect way of saying: “I think it’s unclear”. This sentence directs attention toward the object (the writing) and away from the subject (you). Thus, the question then arises, who is it unclear for? You can’t speak for me, or anyone else, so you can only be certain that it’s unclear for you.
Society values clever people and does not value stupid people; clever people understand things and stupid people do not. Thus, when we don’t understand something we have to hide that fact (though if we don’t adopt these values we can just be straight up and honest). The formula is simple: “Society says I should understand, so I do understand, but I don’t understand THIS, so there must be something wrong with THIS”. As a consequence, very often when people don’t understand something they reflexively criticise the object of their misunderstanding.
With this deception you achieve the following: a) you hide the shame associated with not understanding (we’re supposed to understand, for some reason), b) you get one over the other person, by inverting the relationship between teacher and student, so the student (in this case the reader studying the text, i.e. you) becomes the teacher marking the student’s work, and c) it directs attention away from your misunderstanding and toward the writing (and thus the writer). ”It’s not me! It’s them!” and if unchallenged, you have saved your skin at all costs.
Because everyone’s at it, this objectionable behaviour seems to have become the norm. Consequently we have developed sophisticated “social value hypocrisy speech” which camouflages misunderstanding as helpful criticism or as an attempt at insightful investigation. Thus we end up with: “I found this a tad unclear”, versus its direct and honest counterpart: “I didn’t understand this sentence, would you mind explaining it to me?”
The example that you simultaneously provided and requested is a good one.
GP