Political Distrust Breeds Brand Distrust
In case you hadn’t noticed, distrust and mistrust are at an all-time high in our great country. Not just among Tea Partiers, either. The citizenry at large are grumbling and muttering. They’re discontented with the way things are and they distrust the people who are running things. 
Goldman Sachs, the Pope, the government, the courts, preachers and politicians, local school boards, the police department — all of them are suspect these days. And not entirely without cause. But who ever thought such a crabby, suspicious mood would extend toward products and brands? Advertisers, afraid to rile already angry consumers, are putting out bland, inoffensive messages, just to be safe.
“Safe” and “effective” generally don’t go together where advertising is concerned. But these are peculiar times.
When you think about it, with public figures’ statements and product messages trying to lead us on every day, is it a wonder branding is dead, or at least gravely ill? I don’t think so. And that may even be a good thing.
When lying and puffery fail to attract buyers, brands (and politicians, though I wouldn’t hold my breath) may begin to deliver on higher quality. Products will incorporate more “green” methods and packaging. And create a better customer experience.
Or marketers may retreat from product benefits and go the superficial way of “design” as a differentiator. Nothing wrong with that, except that it doesn’t give you a better product, just a cooler-looking package and a higher price tag.
Where does this all lead? Perhaps in the near future, to greater simplicity.
Remember when “branding” was simple, before the dawn of sophisticated marketing requiring a squadron of MBAs and creative artists to develop? It used to be, you got a good product? Tell what’s good about it for the consumer. Branding done. Maybe the company owner and a couple of guys in a back office figured it out.
I guess I yearn for the simple days (way before my time, and even my parents’) when crackers came in a barrel, and nothing went through focus group testing. If people bought it, it succeeded. If not, it didn’t.
Today’s consumer is much more hard-nosed and wary than the eager homemaker of the 50s. Then, in that golden time after WWII, everything seemed hopeful, bright and shiny. New labor-saving devices were invented to help the housewife lighten her burden. There was really something new and improved to talk about.
Today, in a darker political and economic climate, with shelves crowded with parity products clamoring for attention, marketers must re-assess the value of the products and services they sell to consumers who are pinching pennies and worried about the future. You can’t sell “fluffy” or “fun” products to people who are hunkering down (except for chocolate or very inexpensive “cheap thrill” items).
As always, marketing and “branding” will adapt to the new reality. What form that adaptation will take is anyone’s guess. My hope is that the clutter of marginal brands will disappear, and the best and strongest brands will remain. In a rational world, that’s what *should* happen, anyway.
Here’s an interesting food-for-thought article from Rance Crane, of Advertising Age, which inspired this blog post. Take a look. Let me know what you think.
I’m not sure if there’s a causal link between political distrust and brand distrust. However, I do think that advertisers may have been accidentally working against their own long-term interests over the past decade.
I wonder if they’ve poisoned the well by relying upon snark, sarcasm, irony and artificial “edginess” in pursuit of the cool factor. Have we seen so much smart-assery and intentional fourth wall-breaking that we now automatically assume that all advertising is a contest unrelated to the actual product and its quality?
Occasionally, I’ll watch older television ads–60s and 70s stuff–and a majority of those spots are “wow, we have a damn good product” messages. They’re not buzz creation efforts or clever for the sake of cleverness.
I’m beginning to wonder if the next big thing might be the old thing–a straight-up positive message. As naive as that may sound in our era of careful, complicated branding, I think relentless positivity may be the best way to overcome cynicism.
Fantastic post and thanks for the link to Crane’s article.
Carson,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that snide snarkery is distasteful, but when you’re trying to speak in the customer’s terms, you’ve got to say things in a way that resonates. Maybe focus group testing showed that this approach works with certain groups, e.g., 18-25-year-olds. They have plenty to be cynical about, with no jobs to go to after graduation and still living with the folks.
Advertisements for upscale products like cars and perfumes are beyond positive. They assume the viewer is already in the upper tax brackets and is happy as a clam, but this (car, perfume) will make his or her already-wonderful life even more so. And will show everybody how rich and happy s/he is. I hate those ads. But then, I’m not in the upper tax brackets.
Remember, back in the 60s and 70s, when positive messages were out there, most people were pretty optimistic, post-WWII. (Except around Vietnam in the 60s and Nixon and the war in the 70s.) I blame Watergate for eroding people’s trust in government. Around that time, you started seeing very dark movies, protesters, and so on. Political figures since Nixon have not acquitted themselves very well, partly because many people distrust them to begin with and opponents are on the alert for “gotchas,” and partly because many of today’s politicians are less dedicated public servants than creatures from the black lagoon of big-money politics.
I believe the state of the economy, the sleaze of politics and the resulting increase in fear and insecurity have a lot to do with attitudes toward products (Politicians are products now, aren’t they? Read “The Selling of the President.”) and their claims. If the advertisers tap into those feelings, it’s like saying, “Hey, we understand you. We ARE you. So you can believe us.” NOT!