Kansas City Freelance Writer Liz Craig

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.