The Economic Times – Brand Equity

Super abundant information has made us cognitively challenged. As individuals, institutions, groups, societies and entire nations we are more dependent on external judgments now than ever before, the author writes… Rousseau said “I’d rather be a man of paradoxes than a man of prejudices” but one less recognized paradox is that prejudices play a pivotal role in how we deal with information.  A brand is successful when society esteems it. We know that social judgement is a collective construct. The power to shape a brand’s reputation lies in the hands of others. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Super abundant information has made us cognitively challenged. As individuals, institutions, groups, societies and entire nations we are more dependent on external judgments now than ever before. We need help to evaluate and make sense of the information with which we are swamped. For thousands of years, our trust operated in a linear way. You trust A who, in turn,trusts B. Therefore, you trusted B even without knowing him. But these chains were brittle when it came to scalability. With the rise of internet-based information networks, there was a fundamental breaking away in our relationship to knowledge. Now, information is valued only when attested by many others. It needs to be rated and graded by several others. Even a pizzeria chases rating. Collective judgement was always a determinant of brand success.  Today technology has made it possible for an ‘always on’ collective intelligence to be at work which, though anonymous, is weighty. Intrinsic worth is not enough to warrant a fabulous reputation. Reputational build up is relational, dynamic and externally curated. Others make you who you are. That’s why Einstein is acknowledged as a great scientist, but we probably won’t know the Nobel Prize winner in Physics this year.  Fame is not the same thing as social attestation, but -for sure- it is the most recognised and glamorous facet of it in some cases. Amartya Sen, Virat Kohli , Gulzar – each a highly rated achiever – but their respective standing varies greatly where fame at large is concerned. We often mistake being famous with a positive reputation, per se. So, what creates reputation in the positive, confirmatory sense? Where does such judgement emerge from? The British imperialists adopted the Hindi word “Pucca”, literally meaning ‘solid’.  Being judged ‘pucca’ meant you belonged to their class, tribe, mentality and interest group. But in today’s world, peer-review is overshadowed by the influence of mass media and free individuals. Each one rates as if an expert or guru. We trust others because they are many. In that sense, reputation is, always, a meta construct. What we call reputation is, in fact, ‘a reputation of reputations’. Think about it, – a lot of what we dislike, adore or revere is based on second hand and unverified evidence, if any. This socially sanctioned belief system is manipulated by devious advertising, ‘fake news’ and other potentially misinforming sources – and may result in a breakdown of trust. If you want to probe deeply, don’t bother with evidence alone. Don’t see merely what is being said but also who is saying it, why and when. Such vigilance is in your individual interest just as its crucial for ensuring correct valuations, functioning of knowledge-based markets, development of robust institutions and surviving as a viable democracy. In an era of unlimited transmission of information and diffusion of sources it is senseless, if not impossible, to independently research the truth for ourselves. But if we keep our eyes on the interested network behind the content, we may manage to rank it, grade it and label it. In the theory of knowledge, it would be termed a second-order epistemology. Understanding how society esteems a reputation needs a traversing across sociology, psychology, marketing economics and information structures. Often, the reputation building is institutionalised. The Academy Awards, the Nobel Prize, The Padma Awards – we accept the institutional judgement and celebrate it.  A great example of personally disinterested collectivism is Wikipedia. However, the rise of tech enabled voices means that institutional rules have come under question. Collective wisdom is an accretive judgement. Beyond a threshold of group size, it is not deliberative but cumulative. Gossip often plays a role in origination and confirmation. “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob” James Madison has wisely observed. Many minds can be wiser than one but just being numerous is no guarantee of superior output. Democratic deliberation must make full use of diversity inputs and remain unbiased to one sense of rationality. As a consumer, be sceptical. As a brand owner, be transparent. As a society, be vigilant. Never forget, your reputation precedes you! https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/brand-reputation-in-the-information-age/88306921

Every brand does marketing. Exceptionally few brands have a tribe. It is the stuff of genius. Today, every phone is a content engine and every IP address is a broadcast station. The chaos and cacophony is boggling. It puts a huge premium on customer-brand connect. A tribe forms around a brand if it matters to them. The more central a brand is to their way of life, the more bonded the community is likely to be. Brand tribes are modern kinship structures. We crave for social connection with people who feel excited, inspired and stimulated by the same things as us. This is an emotionally relevant association. Consumers do not form tribes around a brand to serve its marketing managers. The creation of a brand tribe, though an organic process, has multiple architects. They include the company, the culture industries , influencers and finally the customers themselves. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] As the tribe starts to interact, cultural materials get created. Stories, images and relevant associations go a long way in cementing the strong and weak linkages that hold the customer tribe together .These are increasingly reliant on metaphors actively shared within the community. This makes the brand discourse engaging, sticky and unique. A brand tribe provides reputational ,relational, experiential and symbolic value. Tribalism is one of the most powerful and fundamental phenomena in society. It is about ‘us’ and ‘them’. Through identification/opposition with others, one also creates a sense of self. Tribalism is identity, culture and belongingness rolled into one. Marketing has for long been dominated by economics and psychology. The sociological relevance of brand creation has been ignored, avoided or perhaps even suppressed. This is obviously a self-goal because brand tribalism is about identity and it answers the fundamental questions ‘Who am I?’ and ‘Where do I belong?’ These are powerful, essential and defining questions which can be associated with brands in incredibly valuable ways. In today’s internet era of hyper individualism, for the first time, massive data collection and organised tools for data analysis are both possible and freely available. Many new dots are being connected and billions of new dots are being created. We are headed from an era of differentiating the product to differentiating the customers. The approach to tribal branding is about the marketers seeking to contribute to the tribes’ agenda, not to take ownership of it. The moment marketing actions reek of commerciality or deliberate planning, it leads to an exit of customers. Don’t assume responsibility for curating the individual customer’s experience beyond what is available to him or her naturally. Of course, it is good to facilitate this via brand events, online anchoring etc. but it is essential to allow customers to develop their own sense of why they are different, unique, special and important. Organic is best. Tribal loyalties are not merely to their chosen brands. They are, in fact , loyal to a shared passion. This vibrant and authentic atmosphere with shared identities and concerns can drive people to weld together. Brand agnostic communities can also develop around activities e.g. – travel, adventure,music,sports,art or motorsports. But even so, members of tribes very often become purveyors of critical brand information for each other. This is an elemental truth about human existence that we need to feel part of a community or communities because mankind has a fundamental need for social relationship. The processes of social fragmentation has led to the demise of the traditionalist homogenous society. Therefore in today’s world, brand tribalism is -in actual fact- about finding oneself. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/brand-tribes-in-a-hyper-connected-world/81542193

Here’s a ringside view of a few key bouts in this supposedly mortal combat.. The Obituary specialists: Declaring the death of everything!  Seeing the glee with which marketers declare the death of everything, big and small, it is surprising that there is very little creativity displayed in writing obituaries! This ought to have been a major area of creative expression. Let us now occupy ringside seats and witness a few key bouts in this supposedly mortal combat: Brand vs. e-commerce  The internet has opened up access for consumers. Since product availability is now beyond brick and mortar, everyone has a full range of choices. It is therefore reducing the dominance of the established branded options. Hence, established brands will get beaten is the conclusion. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] But, hyper-availability is not poison. It is a potion for brands. Amazon monetises access to first page and promotions more than anyone else. Big brands will rule ecomm. Brand vs. the surge in consumer ratings  The heralds of death assert that soon no one will need brands since there is aggregated, first-hand information readily available. Consumers can now easily find objectively comparable data online. This is true and irrefutable. But, consumers’ decisions are not driven by rational arguments. Brands exist because they are more than their specifications. Functionally most brands of a certain level deliver alike. Had this logic been true, critical reviews would have made a Bollywood star and created box office success. Regrettably, we know that is not the reality. I am not suggesting that a brand can win even with a consistently inferior product. But brands with superior equity can win even with parity performance. Brand vs. a declining relevance of advertising The most imbecile straight lined argument claims that the death of advertising effectiveness will finish off brands. The cash reserves of Google and Facebook are enough to clarify that advertising isn’t dying. And when did God say that brands cannot find other ways to market themselves? Advertising existed all through the growth of consumerism but it is not the ‘be all and end all’ of brand building. Brands will outlive advertising as we know it. Brands vs. AI Lastly, the most credible and attention worthy declaration is that “AI will change the consumer interaction with brands starting right from discovery”. It implies that consumer sovereignty is dead and now such choices will be automatically made for them. I appreciate there are more category shoppers than brand buyers. But discovering, experiencing and preferring one brand over the other is the substrate on which the entire edifice of marketing is built. The most trusted brands are mass brands. Conclusion Brands are not dying. The reasons that motivate brand pundits to make such a claim are purely selfish. They want to profit from the panic. Death is change and the birth of something stronger and better. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/the-obituary-specialists-why-marketing-pundits-declare-the-death-of-everything/76542414

The theory of social media marketing differs from its practice. Vested interests puff up myths and fallacies about it. The dogma is that social media is disruptive, democratic, autonomous and open access. The commercial reality is strikingly different. The ‘proven’ approaches are all offered on a rate card. They are designed and evolved for paying advertisers. Brands pay platforms to get results. Social media platforms work like traditional media channels. The difference is that they possess massively superior information about their followers, which they exploit. Why are they of value to brands? To reach large audiences with paid media promotions. Interaction is possible but the vast majority of people on social media do not comment, share or actively engage with brands.This reality is concealed, snubbed or ignored. Social media is very much subject to traditional approaches. The hype about a new era of conversational, opt in marketing which celebrates success through virality is just that – ‘hype’ ! If you take an empirically substantiated view, you will see that successful brands do not run after engagement. They have the means to guarantee scale and impact through paid plans. Being powered by ‘audience love’ is not key to their strategic plans. Big brands are not reliant on award winning content beating the algorithm. In fact, big brands rely on the algorithm thanks to their cheque books, not creativity! The utopia built around engagement, conversation and real-time virality is a relic. When did you last hear Facebook talk about fans, organic conversations or engagement on their platform? It is all about paid reach. It has been so for years. Social media has become just another marketing channel and most consumers do not want many or daily conversations with brands. Engagement – Vanity made sacred Since -by definition- social media is about community, everyone focused on engagement. Increasing the total of the number of clicks that one could attract became the game. At an aggregated level, higher engagement numbers do not necessarily mean better business results or stronger brands. Social media campaigns for big brands reach hundreds of millions of people, but only few thousands ever engage with them. There are performance outliers like Nike, Zara, Red Bull, Go Pro, Royal Enfield and a handful of others. But they are not the norm. Like conventional media, social media influences consumer decision-making without having a large number of engagement interactions. Yet, despite this clear picture, it is still commonplace for marketers to focus on engagement as the key performance indicator of their social media campaigns. The whole mind set is that content should get reactions rather than effectively communicating. This makes little business sense. Engaged audiences are already the core audiences. Media planning basics suggest that you should try to maximise reach. Sale pricing for engaged audiences is at a premium. Still, brands compete to get in front of the same people. Community size and following – A lever or a consequence ? It is always nice to know that there is a fan following or a core audience that is passionate or obsessive about your brand. The reality is that most people live very distracted and busy lives and it is rare for them to have attention or interest in a brand on an ongoing or a daily basis. The causal connection between fan population and business growth is not validated. Priority to the existing community implies an inability to reach potentially new customers. Social media – It is not for free. Theoretically, social media marketing is free. Anyone can set up a profile, a channel, a page and then post content which many people can potentially see. Billions of accounts have been set up and so, predictably, one gets lost in the cacophony. Hence, for serious business, reach is achieved through paid means. But the halo is still seen around engagement. So there you have it. No matter what the reality is and all the evidence proving it, the myth of the transformative effect of social media abides. I call upon marketers to use social media without delusions. This is my counsel – Firstly, do not get too caught up in the tactics of what is currently working in social media. Trends are less important than we think. Clear insights, investment linked to business objectives and a solid view of what the brand stands for are way more important than any flimflam. Secondly, pick your channels based on brand need. There is no point in duplicating your reach. Once you get reach, watch the reaction.Find a linkage to sales. Do not be silly to revel in the ‘call to no action’. Brand building is business. Stop creating content you can’t afford to promote. Lastly, great social marketing isn’t about instant interactive experiences. It is about rich, relevant storytelling reaching many people. The more the people, the better the outcome. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/dear-marketers-dont-fall-prey-to-the-hype-around-social-media/75559459

Building brand esteem and reputation is one of the most precious but least understood dynamics in the business world The process by which all brands find their relative place in the ever shifting social world of consumer esteem is hard to understand. It is a world all brands precariously and inescapably inhabit. A brand can never fully control its reputational levers. However, every brand has a reputation which it must confront. Today, we live in a world of data rich transparency. Everything has a rating. Everybody seems to be checking the rating for everything. Yet brand reputations are now more difficult to build than at any point in time in the past and more information is seemingly leading only to more confusion. When we first come into contact with new information or new domains of knowledge, we are reliant on others. This reliance extends to accessing facts, opinions, values, biases and preferences of others. Internet technologies have made it easy and tempting for any novice to venture boldly into new domains of knowledge. It is often forgotten that the prejudices, pre-judgements and sampling weights of many others make up our mind. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] With the explosion of information, we are now moving towards an age where information will be valued only once it is filtered, evaluated, rated and commented upon by others. It means collectivism will reign supreme. This paradigm is quite striking in the case of the web because it represents a radical transformation in our access of knowledge. It is changing the forms, domains and ways in which knowledge is acquired. Let me explain – today, we have the extraordinary ability to collect, synthesise and list centralised information in order to achieve knowledge outcomes. Search engines, Wikipedia entries, e-commerce transaction ratings, social judgement on social media networks -these are not all genuine collective intelligence system but rather a commercialised , worked upon retrieval system – using algorithms based on ranking, weightage or ‘sheer paid bias’ in fetching and presenting ‘facts’ to us. I don’t think -as a society- we have taken information design issues as seriously as we have treated privacy. Information design can camouflage the inherent bias in the system and mask its potential misuse. This is a whole area of critical importance called epistemic vigilance. We must have a system which preserves diversity of information, values its independence such that people’s opinions need not be determined by others and fosters decentralisation such that people are able to draw upon local knowledge. Aggregation should not become a rating device because every person’s rating is unique. There is no reason to assume that collectivism produces wiser results. In an information dense environment ,where brands rely on paid media to compete in attracting attention ,what is the relevance of collective wisdom? Isn’t this corpus of knowledge far from the ideal knowledge which stems from objective evaluations or judgement of few experts? Are best selling and best- the same thing ? We have an epistemic obligation to ensure that we investigate the means by which a reputational process is arriving at results. What are its methods for aggregating individual choices? What are the possible biases that the system may have in its design? This is important as billions of people make trillions of dollars of decisions based on habit and retrieval from intelligent systems. While there is a hue and cry about artificial intelligence there seems to be very poor understanding of ‘technologically mediated human intelligence’. The internet is not serving merely a cognitive function – namely to retrieve information – but also a social function in organising this information in various types of classifications that then becomes the basis for culture. This is ‘Meta Memory’. This Meta memory system has been commercialised because the actions of digital citizens leave addresses and traces in the system ,which are then reusable like a track left on the ground. These tracks then become highways of traffic and reflect in the ranks that inform and influence future preferences and actions in turn. Unlike a library , this is wisdom out of commercial algorithms. This difference is supremely important. What we think of as a hierarchy of relevance is not so. It is merely informing you of a process output. The main question is – what’s the process !? The biases built into search engines should become a major subject of discussion, scrutiny and even controversy. Awareness of such bias should dictate a social enforcement of search practices well. It is not about greater market share or deeper profit. Ultimately, it is about tendentious information and the sanctity of knowledge and expertise itself I hope technology will not fail us and we will continue to improve innovative and more democratic ways of gaining knowledge and shaping decisions.

The ‘MBA style marketing organization’ –mechanical, reductionist, return minded and focused on the short term – is a bureaucratic, staff-driven cost centre. It has caused massive waste, missed opportunities and failure for many businesses. Marketing as it was originally intended, in its inspired, grand and beneficial form, is more important today than ever before. The world is awash in innovative products, services, technologies, solutions and business models today.  These new offerings must be brought to market and commercialized in order to generate revenue and profit.  Technology or product innovation cannot sustain a company unless paired with marketing. Instead of being led and valued as a driver of business viability and growth, marketing has festered in recent years.  For the past couple of decades, the cognoscenti have been claiming that marketing is dead. No sooner had advertising avoidance become technically possible, buying fame off a rate card was no longer an easy option for a brand. The surge of crowd connectedness and social media further attacked the conventional branding models. Recent developments such as the growth of artificial intelligence, adaptive algorithms and predictive analytics are causing marketing upheaval. Therefore, we are often forced to accept the slur that “marketing is the cost one has to pay when ones product is inferior. That’s a lot of baloney! In fact in the chaotic, competitively Darwinian, undifferentiated market, the role of marketing is more powerful than ever before, provided that it is done right! Now, the world is different from any time in the past of the human civilisation in terms of content. Today, the moment you open your mouth as an individual, as a brand, as a business, you risk being washed away in a flood of noise and clamour. Millions of commercial messages are blasted at us every day and round the clock. Marketing now, for the first time, actually has a chance to be something far more than an imposition into peoples’ lives. The problem is that the marketing establishment has just too many legacy habits it needs to break out of to make that possibility a reality. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] We, as marketers, must start to live the story and to tell the story we live. The problem is we have inherited the practices of an industry which is spoiled by television and other overused, rate carded channels and platforms. They have dominated marketing for almost an unbroken century and this model is now dramatically withering away. The entire infrastructure that surrounds marketing is still deeply invested in that broadcast model. Even though we are living that shift to peer-to-peer, earned media, the problem is few of us have truly begun to grasp what it means in its entirety. This is worse as you go up the marketing hierarchy where self-delusion prevails. Very few corporations have a setup to provide for audience powered success. Brands have to have core ideas which are powerful, resonant and resilient and to be able to put them in a storyline. Brand narratives have to make themselves wear clothes of a story, character, conflict and plot. Only after that, can they hope for the best. Of course, they will live or die according to how appealing they are. But that’s the whole point. One cannot be a broadcaster hoping for passive consumers. One needs to be a storyteller, sitting amidst a large group of people who are not passive consumers, but partners. Even here the typical ‘MBA marketers’ of the bureaucratic big corporation fail. A decade ago most companies were anticipating a new age of branding, they hired creative agencies and tech firms to insert brands throughout the digital universe. A new lexicon emerged with words such as Viral, buzz, memes, stickiness, and form factor becoming commonly used. But, despite the hype, such efforts have had very little payoff. As a central feature of their digital strategy, companies made huge bets on what is often called branded content. Again they have fallen flat on their faces. This is because ‘change is the enemy of vested interests’. In perpetuating the method and the process lies the power of brand bureaucrats. To seem like specialists, they are over-reliant on analysis and scientific looking methods. They discount and even disrespect true experiences. To make the brand stretch and take a proposition worldwide, the brand bureaucrats reduce the brand to a manual, a brand book. The entire focus is to simplify, reduce, explain pithily.  The foolish reduction proceeds all the way to how a brand must own ‘a mood’, ‘a word’, ‘a primary association’. I have a point to make – That which is complex is never simple but it need not be complicated. Live in the real messy world and engage with it. This is not only a matter of principle but of sheer adaptive survival. It is now evident that there will be increasing complexity in consumer purchasing decisions and Personalization in product design and communications will be more prevalent. The global proliferation of smartphones has made Mobile communications the main feedstock of marketing where personalized data-driven marketing will hold sway. The only prescription that is proven to be effective is for digital to be organization-wide and move beyond silos. The brand bureaucrats who will be extinct are too obliged towards the short term. They don’t know that great brands are built like empires, over decades and centuries not quarters and fiscal years. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/why-mavericks-do-more-than-manuals/74189765

By design, historical precedent and its evolution, the MBA is a qualification wholly unsuited for creative marketing. Undeniably, it is a good preparation for business careers, generally speaking. But creating culture and generating social impact via iconic brand building is quite another thing. The annexation of the creative world by MBA Conquistadors has led to its domination via excel sheets, income analysis, quantitative research and studies on marketing ROI Per intention, the MBA program is intended to select, strengthen and advance those who are numerate, logically driven and method oriented general managers. There is an innate bias to mathematically tuned thinking with little or no exposure to social and cultural realities. Formally, there is no encounter with the culture industries. Informally, there is little bandwidth or opportunity. As a consequence, most young brand managers lack even the rudimentary ability to assess brand building from a cultural perspective. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] ‘MBA marketers‘ are essentially back room operators not creators. They revel in the tactical, short-term and efficient. Their cognitive apparatus is not set up for “catching the social mood”. But brands are social entities. A few even grow into social institutions. If we agree that powerful brands can create culture then, by implication, we find deep trouble in MBA paradise! Not only are MBA marketers ill equipped as brand managers, they are surrounded by clone MBAs from the partner agencies. Also, ever since economic liberalization in India, they are all too well paid to genuinely live the life of the ‘mass cohort’ ! . Their orientation, language and directional biases are far away from the reality of mass culture. They do “consumer home visits” like one goes to the zoo. Insularity , not familiarity, breeds contempt! The epochal changes that have been underway in this millennium have now brought MBA marketing to an existential crisis. To build culture , create truly engaged social communities and shape society , brands need reinvention . The ‘MBA-brand manager’ needs to be reborn as a culture enthusiast. This cant happen if they see the world only in spreadsheets! To my mind, the origins and development of the MBA-brand manager role are responsible for this. It happened in functional, low involvement categories where consistency and owning of benefits through repetition were the proven way. There was no felt need for MBA marketers to look beyond the brand manual and its key associations. Data driven dashboard management and just a sprinkling of pop psychology was enough. Today, brands have to be ready for rapid change. Brand builders need a holistic view of social and cultural mood. This calls for deeply entrenched understanding with inputs from sociology, psychology, semiotics , economics, anthropology, cognitive science, linguistics and so on. This interdisciplinary exposure and the necessity to roam freely in various fields of knowledge is something the MBA program does not allow one to do. One look at the classical MBA case study methodology shows you why it is the exact antithesis of what is required. Typically, it prescribes reading a few pages along with a few data tables and frame a few “insights“ and that’s it – you have a case -a representative situation. The MBA class gets ready to decide!! How real is that? The creed imbibed in MBA style marketing is – “Make the brand a constant”. Nothing should change. A brand is, in fact, defined as such – one that is unchanging in its consistency. A brand achieves iconic status only when it is representative of its society. A brand of such stature withstands, even leads, the most profound transitions. Coca-Cola is America. Nike is self-expression and achievement. Marlboro is rugged masculinity. Patagonia is responsible consumerism. Gandhi taught us that you have to understand society in order to change it . The MBA brand manager by training looks a brand as a revenue bearing asset that has to be managed. A hidebound coordination job. Part execution, part audit. There is no recognition or disciplinary training to look at the brand‘s cultural symbolism, its most dramatic and critical asset. It is therefore time to insist that MBA marketers , as a class, vacate their dominant position. A new diverse set of brand owners must take charge. They must see and appreciate consumers as real people and not as ‘targets’. We will then have brand revolution Amen! https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/a-new-marketing-era-beyond-the-mba/73140234

All brands advertise. Only the exceptional few create culture. The most difficult road to success, but the surest one for those who can stay on it, is the co-creation of a brand with the help of consumers. To have a tribe. But, what gets people to promote a brand with enthusiasm, commitment and devotion? Why do some brands get core consumers who are passionate enough to form into a tribe? Tribes don’t coalesce only around brands. They can come together for a cause, activity, shared identity or concern. Tribes cannot be purchased; they don’t get formed because they ‘ought’ to. The reason why ‘brand tribalism’ is such an effective way of earning authenticity, credibility and meaningful differentiation is because this is one of the few volitional means through which modern age consumers can experience a sense of community in a fulfilling and value adding way. The reason consumers weld together by mutual consent to form tribes is the need for social bonding. Humans have a fundamental need for social belonging and relationships. Kinship, community, domicile and religious identity as pillars of identity are now weak or crumbling. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] The modern age, from The Renaissance onwards, has been about expressing individualism. No convention, norm or dogma has escaped rejection or rebellion. Brands and brand followership provides a means to re-form collectivism and congregate meaningfully. It is about opting in, not a compulsion. It is “an emotionally guided free choice”. Emotions, rituals, philosophy – provide a ‘bonding force’ – sometimes with a tangible object and sometimes not. This ‘linkage’ is vital from a brand’s point of view but can be imaginary not real, intangible not physical, emotional not functional. There are tribes of say – Nutella gourmets, Mini cooper drivers, Scotch enthusiasts, Star trek, Harry Potter, FC Barcelona fans. Thousands of clubs, groups, associations, networks and assemblies. Moreover, ‘brand tribalism’ is about the public parading of identity and the performance of identity rituals. In the past, when the world of brand building and marketing was more plain vanilla and ‘regular’, such a group vibe was cynically labelled as “group narcissism” deemed to be exhibitionistic and self-indulgent. What the cynics failed to see was that group affiliation becomes deepened to group narcissism because deeper shared passion must be demonstrated. When Identity is a collective concept, each individual must show their tribal credentials affirmed through taking part – in a highly visible, congregational way – in tribal activities. There are many variations on the type of group congregation and its demonstrative value. But, to be a tribe, it is necessary to belong along with many others. The key denominator is the pre-requisite of declared membership, of taking part, reaffirming the tribe’s linking values and helping to magnify and then perpetuate the brand’s identity. Devotion to a brand or high engagement intensity in an activity does not mean one is automatically a member of a tribe. There is a degree of socialisation required. You may need to take your engagement online to the ground, offline. The group interaction, shared excitement and exchange – is a definitional aspect of tribe! Tribes need to be free. They should set their own terms, create their own meaning around brands and activities. This may also imply criticizing the marketer’s narrative. The tribe may want to re-write its own narrative on the brand. Smart tribal marketers will encourage and support this ‘laissez – faire’ mindset, not to constrict it. ‘Consumer Tribes’ and ‘Brand Communities’ are not the same thing. Communities are by definition more fluid in identity and comprised of people with multiplicity of memberships. Compared to this, tribes are more hierarchical, tighter in terms of order with defined totemic activities. Communities are the optimal midpoint between market and brand but are seen to be brand associated. Tribes are inspired by a larger association with consumption and lifestyle as a whole. It is only when the tribe members, as a unit, are able to claim, reconstruct, or deconstruct associations of brand and category that we can call them brand tribes. The element of identity is of lesser consequence in communities but of paramount importance in tribes. Brand communities can be transient depending upon the evolution and life of the branded subculture whereas tribes are relatively more permanent, often outliving the brand itself. Finally, communities are more about groupings of excited equal members who are somewhat non-serious and operating in less formalised environments, whereas tribes, as they get defined, inherently have more ritualism and cultural fixation along with more tradition in the mix. Of course, every community can crystalize to being a tribe and many tribes may regress to being ‘sort of’ communities. Remember association is not affiliation. A crowd is not a tribe. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/marketing/tribal-marketing-the-creators-of-culture/72129472

Almost all global brands owe their origins to an entrepreneurial fount. In many inspiring instances, entrepreneurs were driven by the need to challenge tradition and create value and in the process became forces for modernism. In India the names of G.D. Birla, B.M. Birla, T.V.Sundaram Iyer, Jamnalal Bajaj, Walchand Hirachand, J.R.D. Tata will be remembered for having led the biggest expansion of Indian industry. This was before the start of socialist licensing policies and the loss of enthusiasm as India started closing up. In the early period of economic expansion from 1900 to the 1960s, giant entrepreneurs were at the forefront of growing the Indian economy. Across the world, in Western Europe, America and Japan the rapid professionalization of business administered by a managerial class happened concurrently with the emergence of a world of institutions. In our world today, every major area of activity – economic performance, healthcare, education, protection of environment, nurturing of the arts – is entrusted to institutions. In the year 1900, the world would have been largely composed of two sets of influentials – a powerful government and its associated ruling elites on the one hand and the entrepreneurs as a force on the other. World commerce accelerated ahead and private capital outpaced sovereign authority. Yet, it has still preserved the space for giant entrepreneurs – Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Richard Branson are a few amongst the tallest examples today. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] In the past a legendary gallery of inspired souls – Sam Walton, Walt Disney, Ray Kroc, JP Morgan, John.D.Rockefeller, Henry Ford, Iwasaki Yataro (Mitsubishi), Kiichiro Toyoda (Toyota) , Lee Byung-chul (Samsung), Jamsetji Tata created wealth through growing brand-new opportunities or dramatically redefining and expanding current business opportunities, often globally. Those most remembered were blessed with a certain charisma which galvanised everybody into active collaboration. The closest archetype for the entrepreneur is that of a spirited rebel who breaks down barriers to create something new and exciting. The story of such a bootstrapped maverick is typically rags-to-riches. While the ingenuity, determination and perseverance is typically a part of the first generation progenitor, it is true that there are inheritors who have been fired with the same spirit and grown business boldly in new directions. Energised by the very process of creation they were ahead of their times. This visionary mindset motivated them to persevere, with determination, in backing a seemingly small opportunity, a fledgling market or a promising technology. The study of the entrepreneur was the core of Joseph A. Schumpeter’s work. In his seminal book ‘The theory of economic development’, published originally in German as Theorie der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, he provided an early definition of the entrepreneur – “…the carrying out of the new combinations we call ‘enterprise‘, the individuals whose function is to carry them out we call – ‘entrepreneurs’…” Schumpeter idolized the entrepreneur as one who breaks up the old and creates new traditions. This is not surprising given that he studied them at the time when industrialisation in America and Europe was at its peak. In his follow-up work “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy “ which he wrote later in the 1940s Schumpeter notes that a moving force for reforming or revolutionising patterns of production or commercialising a technological possibility was present in a small fraction of the business population. This is why the stories of successful entrepreneurs have become a part of Western folklore and rightly these originator businessmen are the first to be associated with greatness. We need a billion of them in India. Strength to them. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/business-of-brands/the-brand-of-entrepreneurs/71492311

The chief executive officer is modern society’s most compelling, conflicted, charismatic and famous figures. CEOs are fabulously powerful but their power is also fragile and precariously placed. CEOs represent an exclusive, highly qualified, well networked, influential and prosperous class of people. They stand as our greatest prophets and our most industrious action heroes. Beyond just running companies and making profits, they’re positioned as the primary producers of global prosperity. Fame follows power and one is not surprised at the veneration. [siteorigin_widget class=”SiteOrigin_Widget_Image_Widget”][/siteorigin_widget] Moreover, it is not as if blame doesn’t come to them. In fact, that’s a telling thing too. The blame inevitably comes to CEOs as individuals. These occasional scapegoats and ‘fall guys’ perish from memory but the systemic correction rarely happens. Be it the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, HP’s chairperson authorising spying on its Board members, Volkswagen emissions scandal of 2015, Barclay’s Libor manipulation, Exxon Mobil’s climate controversy of 2016 – we see this pattern repeated time and again. These stories offer a counter-narrative, where these fallen heroes are declared villains. The ‘CEO brand’ remains unsullied; it’s the individual who’s a rotten apple. The CEO brand is multi-faceted such as genius, productivity, drive, intelligence and commitment. The CEO brand stands for charismatic individualism above all. They are priests who worship the high Gods of profitability, efficiency and effectiveness. The belief thus engendered is that a true CEO always competes and wins. He is a role model for society at large. One who is not just to be admired but actively emulated. This is the commercial redux of our transactional society – winning is the end objective. Every aspect of economic, organizational, social and cultural life is reduced to an existential and financial contest. The good life, belongs to the successful. As an executive, one is well positioned to earn money and power and make ones dreams come true. All that is required is that one ruthlessly play the game to win. The CEO brand is the poster icon of this gospel. In an age of immersive, ‘always-on’ media it’s not seen as abnormal to glorify ‘winners’. It is hugely amplified via corporate – funded and friendly media coverage. ‘You are the CEO of your life’ or ‘Our country needs a CEO ‘- these types of declarations drives the belief that CEOs are the sources of the secret wisdom of not only how to survive, but to thrive in an exceedingly complex modern world. Never mind if you can’t be an actual CEO, still strive to be the ‘CEO’ of your own life. Hagiographies of CEOs have become a special sub-genre, explaining the inner working of their minds and promising a life worth billions for just Rs 499/-. Neutron Jack Welch, Lee Iacocca, Chainsaw Al Dunlop, Carly Fiorina, Lou Gerstner, Jamie Dimon, A.G.Lafley, Paul Polman. The list is longer than the Fortune 500. I list professional managers and not ‘entrepreneur- CEOs’ or inheritors. This is because the modern capitalist system is ultimately a managed process. Hence a professional turning into Caesar is of greater consequence. Why does it matter? An obsession with ‘being like a CEO’ reduces us to a society of market calculations where success is valued regardless of the costs. It deludes us to worship a singularly powerful executive and makes us enthralled with the very people and values that reduce us to inconsequentiality. The failure to criticize, question and overturn leads to social, moral and economic bankruptcy. Profit becomes the commanding force and everything is forever on a treadmill .Every good cause is expected to yield a financial return to the giver, worded movingly as ‘Doing well by doing good’. The smallest act of civic mindedness is also a commemoration for PR. The CEOs we need as brand icons are those who win a reputation for compassion and sustainable development. We should realise that this form of glorification of executive power is a market directed activity. The conviction that only business-style leadership is necessary for solving organisational, social and economic problems is dangerous. A CEO showcased as the embodiment of the strong, capable and forward-thinking leader is not just operational branding but is ideological. Capitalism is endangered. It is plagued by corruption, humiliation, disaster, economic calamities and financial instability. Our planet and society is existentially threatened by ecological unsustainability, environmental degradation, unemployment and poverty. It needs all of us –not just a band of faux super heroes – to join the battle. The world cannot afford the CEO brand. The capitalist world must return to the goodness of managerial commodity. https://brandequity.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/business-of-brands/what-does-it-take-to-be-a-modern-day-ceo/70668397