The algorithm doesn’t just show us what we care about. It can start to shape what we think we care about. In this episode of Market Says, hosts Marcus Collins and Gayle Troberman, alongside University of Michigan students get to the heart of how brand relevance works in a feed-first culture. If people are discovering issues, products, controversies and cultural cues through their “for you” pages, then brands are no longer just competing for attention - they’re competing to become part of someone’s identity. For marketers, the question becomes less “what do we want to say?” and more “how is the market receiving, reshaping and sharing what we stand for?” Because today, brand meaning doesn’t only live in the campaign. It lives in the feed.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Should brands take a stand?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I mean this has been an ongoing debate since Simon
Sinex start with why right, the brand needs a purpose
of brand has a purpose and brand needs take a stand.
And we've seen so much evidence of brands succeeding and
taking a stance. We've also seen evidence of brands falling
when taking a stance.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
What's their take on this scale?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I think smaller challenger brands have a little more freedom.
But I have always been on the side of there's
a million other ways to reach your consumers and find connections.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Why take the risk.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
But when brands that are super big, like a Microsoft
that's quote unquote for scale, when they do take a stance,
it's actually much much more powerful because they've risked so much. Right,
They're so convicted that even when it's inconvenient, they still
took a stance. But I think your point is that
there are other ways to stand relative to how we
(01:12):
typically think about brand standing for something. So I would
like to if you're not a posed gale, to bring
in a panel brilliant brilliant minds who just so happened
to be students at the University of Michigan. It look
I'm biased, but it just will happened to be brilliant,
and at Michigan we tend to do it that way.
I would love to introduce to the conversation my students Cyrus,
(01:37):
Zach and Ilana who happened to be marketing students at
the University of Michigan. But I think they we'll have
a really powerful point of view that we can really
dig into this idea of brand taking a stand. Alana,
(02:13):
Zach Cyrus, welcome to market, says.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Thank you, Marcus. Happy to be here.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
I'm very excited to be here and share our perspectives.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Absolutely, I can't wait to dive into it.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Okay, okay, So I want to ask you, do brands
need to have a stance on social or political issues
in these divisive times to win over consumers?
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Cyrus, what say you?
Speaker 7 (02:33):
I think absolutely brands, regardless of the size, need some
sort of political stance at its core. Brands need to
have beliefs, but the ones that like they publicize should
be related to like their core values. So I think
the ones that they articulate into the media need to
be aligned with what they truly believe. If they're talking
(02:56):
about inclusivity and inclusion, Like, I think that the stance
that they should have should be reflected in their social
media about inclusivity and the other issues that maybe aren't
as salient, they definitely need to have a viewpoint on.
But you sort of have to pick and choose your battles.
So I think the ones that echo your your vision
(03:16):
and your viewpoint the most should should definitely be like
the issues that are prioritized. I think nowadays silence is
an answer and taking a stance as an answer, and
when you're like a real fan of a brand, I
think that that stance is very important because if you
are silent in those cases, then it's like, okay, that's
(03:38):
what maybe the general.
Speaker 6 (03:39):
Consensus is doing.
Speaker 7 (03:40):
Maybe quote unquote, like performative is like a new term.
There's a little dissonance and gap there. So I think
the risk is well worth it. I mean, it's very
powerful when brands take a stance. But yeah, I'm still
thinking about it. But those are not just my initial thoughts.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So a lot of question for you, Like you all
are biased to some degree because you have some acumen
and some knowledge of the marketing literature, but your friends don't. Right,
your friends are just walking around here, free as a bird,
completely bit into all marketing communications. Clueless, Yeah, exactly clueless.
(04:15):
What are the vibes like? Are your friends when they
see marketing communications they see brands take stands? Are they
like totally I love that brand? Now they're kind of like, yeah, whatever,
I think.
Speaker 8 (04:26):
Me and my friends actually have somewhat of a rare
take for our age. In fact, I'm going to have
to disagree with Cyrus on behalf of me and my
friends to me, in my eyes, a brand is not
a person. A brand is not a human with lived experience.
A brand is made up of hundreds and thousands of
hundreds of thousands of employees. So can there ever be
one stance or one correct answer? Definitely not. But looking
(04:51):
back at the most famous brands you can think of, Apple, Coke, Amazon,
I could sit here and ask eah and every one
of you, is this brand a Democrat or a Republican.
If a brand does a good enough job connecting with
the people and having a product that speaks for them,
then people will find a way to make it their identity.
(05:13):
So it's not so much that a brand can influence
and say we're a Democrat, we're a Republican.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
We believe this.
Speaker 8 (05:19):
I don't think that's a risk worth taking. And if
the brand is strong enough, then people will find a
way to morph it into their identity, not the other
way around.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
I could not agree more.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
You know we I think, Alana, you hit on something
so super important, and I think it's a mistake we
make as marketers all the time. We just did this
research at iHeart on human intelligence and kind of reaching
people as humans in the era of AI and what
the most interesting slide by far, and like the fifty
slide deck, was almost any issue that you give to consumers,
(05:54):
there's a fifty five to forty five split today And
the most interesting thing and terrifying thing that we found
in that research was the biggest determinant of what side
of the fifty five to forty five you were going
to be on. On whaten any issue had to do
with what showed up most in your feed. Right, there's
going to be people on every side of every issue,
(06:16):
So you have to find a way, I think, to
be not vanilla, but take stands on things that that
are less politically motivated and more culturally motivated.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
So that's my take.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I love this, I love this.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
I actually love the two sides here between Alana and
cyrus Zach. Do you find brands in your social feeds
signaling to you that this is for you? Is it
happening in the comments of the posts. Are they happening
offline and then finding themselves reflected online?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (06:51):
Yeah? I really think that.
Speaker 9 (06:53):
My perspective is that with the for you page, specifically
with social media, is that I don't think people truly
know the reasons why they believe what they believe. And
I've seen that firsthand in so many conversations with friends
and families, where it seems like they're portraying their own
opinion that they've developed over time, but in reality it's
(07:14):
a twenty second short that someone said that they agreed with.
But from the outside perspective, we don't know the difference
between one or the other. So in reality, we think
we know what we want and what we want to consume,
but I think in reality it's based off what we
see everyone else doing around us is what defines how
(07:38):
we want to consume. I think, specifically for gen Z,
it's never been harder to truly identify who you are
as an individual because we really live in a comparative
culture where the average person my age is scrolling five
hours a day on their phone. And from that, you know,
(07:58):
it seems that can asumption has become a way to
portray your identity physically and externally, so that from there
the most important thing is seeing one what everyone else
is doing around you, and two from an identity perspective,
is that what brands do you think physically aligned with you?
(08:19):
Because by living in a world of comparison and having
an unclear perspective on who you are and what you
care about, that consumption becomes, in my opinion, so much
more important because, for example, with clothing, my first perception
of someone is based off how they dress before their
(08:39):
exact personality. And I think that is a great example
of the significance of consumption today with how people defining
their identity.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
I think fashion is a big part of identity. But
you know, I don't know, do you talk to your
friends about which mobile cell phone provider you use and
think of that as part of your identity? Are you
just looking for the best deal or the most reliable? Like,
how do you guys think about the brands? They're a
little more hidden.
Speaker 9 (09:07):
I came across a constant trend from talking to all
my friends is in terms of understanding their consumption, and
the reality is that we don't like making decisions. So
from a consumption perspective, I'll ask my friend, why do
you get this type of soap at the grocery store
or at during read every time, and they say, honestly,
(09:30):
I bought it six years ago, and I have no
idea if it's the best, but I know it works,
so that's personally good.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
Enough for me.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Well, most people don't have a relationship probably with their
body wash, right.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I think you take a brand like Dove, who has
very boldly, very publicly taken a stance with regards to
real beauty and.
Speaker 8 (09:52):
Confidence, I would say Dove is the exception, not the rule.
I think any strong value statement would maybe get the
same outcome, and I would probably say it's the same
for these hidden products like we were talking about, so
with soap. If I went to the grocery store and
every single product I had to look at and understand
(10:12):
and make sure that this definitely represents me, I would
be there from now until New Year's and that's just
not a feasible way to live.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
It seems like we are.
Speaker 8 (10:23):
So quick to judge people from what they see, what
they're like Zach said, what they're wearing, And I really
think we need to learn to find a way to
not do that because half the time you don't really
know what a brand stands for, and you don't want
to be at risk if a brand says something you
don't agree with, and the other half you have no
idea why you're wearing or doing what you're doing.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (10:45):
Absolutely, I think that the distinction between left and right
and trying to bring something that's like more in the
middle ground is very important. And then also in terms
of like Dove taking a stance, I think nowadays it's
very common that brand won't take a stance on the
strong issues and things that are like important to like,
(11:05):
like people my age and like the people around me.
So it's very unique what Dove did, and I can
say that like that works because we don't see brands
doing things like that. So I think it's very important
when like a brand takes a stance, but only if
it's like truly like what they believe that I know
we're having like like we kind of just pick things
(11:26):
because we pick them, and we're kind of just cemented
into that and we don't know why we're doing it,
but I think it's like sort of when we see
people around us doing that, it's a reflection of our identity.
And then when a brand takes a stand on something
that they believe and once, once that kind of intersection happens,
I think that like makes some meaning for the consumer.
(11:48):
So I know there's like some psychological like things with
like consumption nowadays, but I think that brands should still
be playing in these issues as long as they like
strongly like relate to it.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Yeah, I think Dove is so is super interesting because
it also wasn't really political. There's not really the anti beauty,
anti real side of the equation.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Same with brand and.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
All the conversations we're having here.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
The science backs up all of this, right, The paradox
of choice, this idea of finding things that are congruent
with our identity, this idea of not knowing what to
buy because there's so much to choose from. So we
look at what our peers buy as a way of
adopting a strategy that helps us stay connected with our people,
(12:35):
with our social groups. All these things are at play here,
and for marketers, what it means is having to understand
what's actually driving what we do, because what I'm hearing
here and police by all means pushback if you see.
Here's the different is that the issue isn't about us
stand so much as much as it is about what
(12:56):
you're standing for and your ability to be consistent in
that stance. That is not a convenient thing, It's a
conviction thing. In all this, we do this as companies
that are starting these vessels of meaning that we call brand,
and we do it to nurture relationships with people so
that they choose us. But I guess that bears another
(13:18):
question that someone hit on a little bit earlier is
that do people actually really want relationships with brands or
do they just want the best things for their dollar?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
ALTA? What's say you?
Speaker 8 (13:29):
I want to preface by starting with just by buying
a product, you have made a relationship with that brand,
a transactional one, but a relationship nonetheless, And once you
get your foot in the door, I don't see why
a brand wouldn't want to continue to build that relationship.
For example, and that could be like you mentioned, products
are parody, So how can we build a relationship that's
(13:52):
to me a political but still resonates deeply with a consumer.
And so for me, take for example, Starbucks, Am I
an expert coffee drinker?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
No?
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Can I tell the difference that my being is burnt?
Speaker 5 (14:05):
No?
Speaker 8 (14:05):
I don't know that. But what I do know is
that I really like the Starbucks rewards program. I think
it's a good one. So if I'm at school and
I'm wanting coffee, I'm going to go to Starbucks because
I feel that this relationship will be beneficial to both
of us, because I think if I buy this coffee,
there's going.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
To be a free coffee for me down the line.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
And so that's a relationship right there, the one that's
going to keep me buying, even if I don't necessarily
like the product or it's the best product. So in
my eyes, yes, absolutely build a relationship. But going back
to what we said earlier, I think I can actually
find some common ground with Cyrus. I think we can
do it, and that my take is if a company
wants to be political, great, go for it. I'm just
(14:47):
never going to be in a position sitting here saying
they absolutely have to or they should And going back
to what Zach said about the pervasiveness of social media
and our algorithms.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We're constantly being fed what we think we're going to
interact with.
Speaker 8 (15:00):
And when we are seeing all of these political issues
and we sit here and we're saying, I'm going to
boycott this brand because they haven't commented about something. That
is what I'm so against. Because social media started out
with such immense hope and opportunity that this is going
to be such a great way to heal communication, except
(15:21):
it's done really nothing but hurt communication. Because we should
be giving social media to the experts and giving them
a platform to stand, not brands. I really don't need
to hear a brand or an influencer speak about something
political because I want to hear from the best. And
when we force a brand or an influencer, you got
(15:42):
one day to comment on this or I'm going to
boycott you, we're getting an incomplete and a flawed response.
So I'm with you, Cyrus. If you wholeheartedly believe it
and you're going to stay consistent, do it. But if
you're not, don't do it.
Speaker 9 (15:56):
Yeah, I think it really honestly depends on the product category.
But on the first part in terms of brand relationships.
I think it doesn't need to be thought of in
terms of like just like a loyalty program or supporting
and believing everything that brand believes in. Like, for example,
I have a loyal, loyal relationship to old Spice. Every
(16:18):
time I go the drain read I'm buying old Spice.
I cannot tell you, for the love of me, what
old Spice stands for or what it means, but I
know that that's my brand and I will be buying
old Spice for the next decade.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Do I know why?
Speaker 9 (16:32):
Honestly, not really, But I think the majority of people
don't understand the relationships that they have and the meaning
behind that. Back to what Alana was talking about with
the economic theory is that I don't want to have
to take the time to think about the deodor and
I'm using.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
I want to use that brain power to focus.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
On the things that matter a lot more to me
in terms of the way I consume, the way I think,
the way I believe, and.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Like studying for my lass right, yes, exactly exactly.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
I think you hit on something right.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I mean, probably eighty percent of the rationale is often
about the transactional value, Right, did I get good value?
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Is it worth the price?
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I get some points, I get some loyalty, like I'll
get a free And I think sometimes when we sit
in Brainstorm idy eight, we probably spend too little time
thinking about the functional stuff, and we're all about the
emotional and the cultural part of brands and sometimes just
that functional stuff. Right if you're if the product doesn't work,
if you know you buy the thing and it doesn't
(17:35):
meet your expectations, like you're dead in the water exactly,
you know.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
So it's all being interesting here because I think that
there are two worlds that are conjoining here. There is
the functional part of the product that's owned by the
brand or the brand and product, and then there's this
idea of identity congruence based on what it means. So
while the product may function so perfectly and that I
(18:10):
buy this thing because it performs that the functional job
to be done, there is, however, the conspicuous nature of
it being seen by other people and based on what
people think of that brand. I would argue that that
was the issue with blud Light two years ago, that
for some it was standing for LGBTQ plus community, for
others it was you know, a boycott to like not
(18:33):
buy it at all? People go, no, what, I don't
want to be in the middle of this, so i'm's
not going to buy it. I'm going to drink Modello instead,
and the business sort of tanks. So I guess the
question I have now for all of us here is
how do marketers do that? Like if we were to
give like a budget to some marketers said, all right,
guys and gals and everyone in between, we want to
(18:54):
cut through. We want to you know, leverage the value
propositions and how great it is as a product to
establish these relationships that may be transactional, but we also
want to signal meaning in the eyes of other people
so that people buy it, so they fit within their community.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
What would you tell them to do?
Speaker 7 (19:12):
I think people want in a relationship with other people,
Like I think the transactional element is very, very important,
But when we look holistically, people want to be in
connection with other people and other people are an extension
of their own identity. So I guess to the point
of creating meaningful, like committed relationships, like, I think the
(19:33):
most important word there is meaning. And I think we
talked a lot about how meaning is dictated over time,
and so I think the budget and the investments today,
you're not necessarily going to see the like the payoffs
or the like exact effects immediately. So I feel like,
in my view and like the people around me, is
like authenticity is key. So like the true fans, they
(19:56):
don't only track what's on social media, they track how
the money is, how the high practices are. Like, I
think that if you look at the brand as a whole,
we like silo social media as the only like way that.
Speaker 6 (20:08):
Brands can like articulate their stance.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
But it's all like the other many things that they do,
like internally with their money and like their culture. So
I think I would like standardize that to their values
first and then work on like promoting things over a
consistent amount of time so it can start making meaning.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
Because we live in such a divisive world, no matter
if the brand gives itself an identity, society will innately
give the brand an identity based on how society consumes that.
So my perspective is that as a as a brand leader,
I'd want to get ahead of controlling the identity I
(20:49):
want to portray in society rather than leading it to
the hands. It's the consumer, and we've seen time and
time again how that can go very good and very bad.
So I would spend the majority of the budget focusing
on specifically portraying in a simple manner, what the brand is,
what the brand means, what it stands for, what we
(21:12):
care about, and why we're here. Probably one of the
most important things I've learned in class over the last
year is that essentially all products are the same, and
if all products are the same, why do we consume
the way we do because of those factors that move
beyond value proposition, And I think due to that, that's
what we need to prioritize most because in the majority
(21:35):
of product categories, as long as the physical intrinsic value
is comparable to the market, what matters beyond that is
the meaning of the brand.
Speaker 8 (21:46):
Yeah, I really agree with Cyrus and that if done well,
you'll probably not see the effects right away.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
Yet are you excited? Yes, Cirrus.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
To me, the best brand is one that can grow
with a consumer. So for that, let's go back to
the relationship analogy. When I was younger, I had a
relationship with Justice. I was in bedazzled everything. Would you
ever see me shopping at Justice now new I'm more
of a gap girl, I would say, But that doesn't
(22:15):
mean that Justice is failing. It just means that I'm
not the consumer anymore. But what would make them successful
is that when I have kids, my first thought is
I'm going to address them in Justice.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
So one brand I think does this extraordinarily well as Lego.
Speaker 8 (22:29):
I haven't played with Lego in ten years, or maybe
I have because I go to business school, but Lego
is doing such a good job at reaching kids and
adults alike, so that even if I am not a
Lego adult per se, I still trust that I'm going
to buy Legos for my kids and it's going to
stay with us for a lifetime. So if I had
(22:50):
control over the budget, I would say my number one
priority is how we can grow with a consumer and
really understanding them and their needs. And like we mentioned,
if I do something to mess up and lose their trust,
I could lose that consumer forever. But that's not just
one consumer, it's them and their friends and their kids. Yeah,
if a brand does its job right, even if you
age out of that company or that brand, you'll find
(23:13):
a way to keep it in your life.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
I absolutely love that, and me actually speaks to to
Zech's point that we are not just relationships with the consumer,
abul relationship with their people as well, because collectively they
are deciding what people like them do, what they buy,
what they wear, what things are congruent with who they are.
So I'm going to do a rapid fire segment that
we call care don't Care. We're going to give you
(23:37):
three scenarios, three situations that have present themselves in the
marketing discourse, and get your take like, should we care
or do you not care? These are the time of
the three biggest stories, I would say in advertising, at
least the back half of the year for sure. So
let's start with Elf and matt riche right brand. You
(23:58):
know people and brands say that you know the brand
missed the mark right? But did they so for you all,
do you.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Care or do you not care? Or did you even
know about it?
Speaker 8 (24:08):
I would say that they did miss the mark, but
I don't care that much because it seems like the
ELF consumers were very forgiving. So we said, we're not mad,
We're disappointed, but I don't believe ELF shares or products
really took a hit Cyr.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
I wass supposed say you did you stop barring ELF
because of Matt Rife?
Speaker 7 (24:27):
Yeah, I want to say as an alf intense ELF
consumer myself now, but I think I completely agree with
like agree with Alana. I think they did miss the mark. Personally,
I do like, like, after researching the situation, I do
care in the moment, like I'm not really the target
(24:48):
consumer i'd say, but after seeing it, I feel like
I absolutely care because it's it's dealing with people. It's
like a people sort of issue, and I don't know,
I felt like I cared about it.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Zach, what say you? Do you care or don't you care?
Speaker 9 (25:06):
Honestly, I never saw it on my feet on social
media anywhere. And as we've been talking about our for
you page, defind who we are more than a lot
more than we think we do. So I say, based
off the algorithm, I don't think the algorithm thinks.
Speaker 5 (25:21):
I care.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
Well said, I love missteps.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
What I love about ELF is that they decided to
keep the ad up.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
They didn't take it down. They're like, this was a misstep.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
To your point, Gail's like, they apologize forward, so it
was a misstep, but they didn't want to bury, you know.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
The bad stuff they weren't hiding.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, exactly, they believe it transparenceries.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
I love that about Elf Corey and that team is
just out of this world and what they're doing. Okay,
so probably the biggest marketing story in the back half
of the year. American Eagle in city Swinging.
Speaker 10 (25:59):
Chans are passed from parents to offspring, often determining traits
like heigh color, personality, and even eye color.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
My chains are blue, right, American Eagle doubled down. They said, Hey,
you know, this is just about genes, not about genes,
wink wink not not.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Did you care?
Speaker 5 (26:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (26:17):
I saw that all over and I think I would
say care for sure, not because of the physical ad,
but because of the way society responded to the ad
and how divisive that was. Because, to be honest, if
I saw that ad as as is, I wouldn't have
nowhere had the same response and contextual background that I
(26:41):
would after seeing it all over social media and online
for you page. And I think American Ego is a
great example of they knew exactly what they were doing,
in my opinion, and they knew the implications that that
would entail. They knew it would create controversy and a
(27:02):
lot of people would disagree with it. But as we
all say, like want bad press is still good press.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
That's the first thing.
Speaker 9 (27:10):
But I also think that as long as you're pleasing
the people that you want to please, then in the end,
it's all for the best for the brand.
Speaker 6 (27:18):
I'm also in a very similar position to Zach.
Speaker 7 (27:20):
I saw this all over my feed, and I do
care a lot about sort of like the messaging behind that.
I don't know like what their target consumer is and
what like exactly like their their market is, but I
think there was very intentional in what they're doing, the
double meaning and things like that, and like I mean myself,
(27:43):
I'm like not feeling so hot about it after you know,
hearing sort of the double meeting. So I think I
also care just because it created a lot of riffs
in like, just as Zach said, is very divisive, and
I think that when you kind of like tear people apart,
it's like a little bit I think it's a little
(28:04):
bit like very impactful in the care, like the caring aspect.
We care a lot about the things that divide us.
I think more than like the things that bring us together.
I feel like we're like more scrutinious about those aspects.
So that's why I say I care a lot, because
like my networks around me like very divided, very divided
about this.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
So that's my take in two cents, All.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Right, a lot of did you go buy some some
genes now for American Eagle because you were just so
enamored with their positioning and it felt so congruent with
your identity.
Speaker 8 (28:35):
Well, what I would have done is immediately had a
bunch of different body types and people types making the
same ad.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
But that's just me.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
Yeah, but I think it's so important to recognize, like
like what Zach and Cyrus were saying, it was all
over our feed. People were enraged, but then the line
sold out and the company did extremely well after that.
So I think that's a lesson to social media is
lying to you because only the ten percent of people
who actually care are the ones speaking about it. No
(29:05):
one's posting like I don't care, but that's probably what
most people feel. What I have done that exactly the
same way they did, No, but it worked for them.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
That line did extremely well.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Okay, so just round out the trifective, care, don't care,
and we got to talk Cracker Barrel, the logo change, right,
did we really miss the old timer?
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Do we care?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Did we notice? Let's start with you, Zach, do we care?
Don't care?
Speaker 1 (29:34):
What's you take?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
I personally don't care.
Speaker 9 (29:36):
And I could have a bias perspective because when I
don't shop at Cracker Barrel and I don't think I've
ever been to a Cracker Barrel, just being honest.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
The gift shop is off. Is the gift shop? It is?
It is.
Speaker 9 (29:49):
But I would say, just in terms of going back
to what Alana said, she made a great point that
the voice you hear on social media is not always
the voice of the zeitgeist per se. And so with
that you really need to take that into account because
we were saying with the American ego thing, people only
(30:09):
care and have an opinion because it seems like everyone
around you has an opinion. So if that ten percent
can blow it up on social media, it seems, oh
my god, I need to have an opinion on this.
But from my perspective is that maybe my perspective is
that it doesn't really change that much the meaning of
the brand from the revamp.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
Of the logo.
Speaker 7 (30:32):
I'm also in the same boat as Zach. I didn't
really notice. I don't like, didn't care, because I've also
never been to a Cracker Barrel. I'd never like, like,
I just I don't even know what type of food
they sell.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Are amazing, they have great pagos?
Speaker 7 (30:47):
Okay, yes, but I think in the grand scheme of things,
I didn't even notice, like, wow, yeah, it's a crowd
Lana here, don't care.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
Well.
Speaker 8 (30:58):
What I'm taking from this discussion is aarently I need
to go get pancakes and gifts from Cracker Barrel, but
I too have never been. I will say the only
time I've been tempted to go was because of all
the controversy in the news and on social media, so
I was like, maybe I should give it a chance,
but I didn't.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
There you, honestly, I also didn't care.
Speaker 8 (31:15):
But I will say whenever there's this big logo change,
I'm so fascinated by its choices, Like PepsiCo just changed theirs,
for example, and I don't like it. I think it's bad,
but I also like, don't care that much. And most
people don't really care about PepsiCo. They care about Pepsi, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
Don't care. Sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
People don't like change either, right when you're a customer
of a thing. I think when you when brands make change,
particularly like well established brands that have been around for decades,
and you know, you know, any change comes with like
people going why are you changing? I'm a fan, whether
it's cracker, Barrel or Pepsi.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
So I think it gets to this idea of consistency,
that relationships require consistency, meaning requires consistency. What is normal
people like me I'm going to consistently do to stay
in community. I think consistiti is a really good thing
to pull out of this.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
We've been talking about brand stands. What's a brand that
you love that took a stand or a brand that
you love a little less that took a stand.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
I can't say I've.
Speaker 8 (32:20):
Been particularly moved by a single company taking up political stands. However,
I can appreciate Patagonia and their commitment to environmental issues.
I can tell it's really core to their business model
and they're not faking it, so I would give them props.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
One of my favorite ads of all time was the
Patagonia ad don't buy this jacket it's just a genius
way when they kicked off kind of their positioning for that.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
If you don't need a new jacket, don't buy a
new jacket.
Speaker 8 (32:50):
And you can find where every single product is made
if you care, that's right, That's.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Right for me.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
It's definitely Nike.
Speaker 9 (32:57):
I don't think I there's a company who love their
ads more than Nike. And you'll never catch me running
in on shoes. I don't care if they're better shoes,
I just will not do it. I'm a loyal follower
and customer to the brand. But I just think that
the way they take stances in a way that is
(33:18):
not only for everyone, but in such an inspiring, inspiring,
motivating way that always makes me feel like more like
cherished and involved and just overall motivated to get active
and be out there in the world. That I don't
think many other brands have the ability to take a
(33:40):
stance on a specific topic and then translate that into
such like provocative and proactive emotions.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
Yeah, not political, but convicted, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
And consistent.
Speaker 11 (33:54):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Yeah, it's a great example. How about you, Cyrus awesome.
Speaker 7 (33:57):
One that really resonates and stands out with me is
Ben and Jerry's and their work with like like social.
Speaker 6 (34:03):
Issues and human human rights activism.
Speaker 7 (34:06):
I actually found out about Ben and Jerry's through all
my friends, but then, like I would, I love Ben
and Jerry so much that I was like, all right,
like let's let's see what's like, what's going on?
Speaker 6 (34:15):
What are they all about?
Speaker 7 (34:17):
And I just think that they're bringing the world together
and they're standing up for people, and like that's that's
the really important part of that for me, beyond like
the utility of like the tonight dough and all the
awesome flavors that they have.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
So I think that's that's super important to me, And it.
Speaker 7 (34:34):
Just it keeps a meaningful relationship with the people around me.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
So friends, they strike again, right, It's all socially driven, right,
but if people like me do.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
We're social animals, right, we want to belong.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I don't know about you, Gail, but hearing from a
lot of Zach and Cyrus, I feel like our future
is in good hands when it comes to to our
industry as marketers, because we have some critical thinkers who
are not only looking at this sense of like a
consumer would, but also kind of rigorously interrogating this to
hopefully make better decisions for brands along the way.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Gail, what's your takeaway from all this?
Speaker 4 (35:10):
I could not agree more. I love flipping culture back
to you guys.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
You give me confidence that you get it and you
want to make smart and responsible decisions for the brands
that I'm sure you, guys will be a shepherding forward someday.
So I want to thank you guys for giving us
a little dose of reality. I think we need more
of this in our boardrooms and conference rooms.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
A lot of clients at Post Cyrus Bettel thank you
so much for your brilliance and allowing us to see
the world through your lenses. And for everyone listening, thank
you for joining us for a market says.
Speaker 12 (35:51):
Market says. It's a bubblo media. Ihet podcast Production.
Speaker 11 (36:01):
I'm Ashaw Tobacco Outa and I'm Juiani.
Speaker 10 (36:04):
We're from the Athena Project and we want to talk
about our new podcast called Unbossing.
Speaker 11 (36:09):
M Bossing, Yes, Unbossing.
Speaker 13 (36:11):
You may have heard me say on many occasions true
that the future doesn't fit in the containers of the past. Well,
in this series, we're going to talk about one specific
container that needs to be radically reshaped.
Speaker 11 (36:23):
And that is the shape of leadership today.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
Indeed, a shout, it does feel like everything is changing,
new technologies, AI, new expectations, new ways of working, everything
true accepting the bosses of today, and we're going.
Speaker 11 (36:36):
To seriously take them apart.
Speaker 13 (36:38):
And the way we're going to take them apart is
we're going to unboss them.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Each week, we'll sit down with the most badass bosses
in business and tech and talk about what they needed
to unlearn in order to succeed.
Speaker 11 (36:48):
Again, that's right true.
Speaker 13 (36:50):
If success is about learning, prolific success is about unlearning
and writing new rules to new times.
Speaker 10 (36:57):
If you're a leader and you're not understanding why you
need to unboss, then you've got to stop talking and
start listening to on Bossing, because if.
Speaker 11 (37:04):
You're not in the conversation, you're not in the game.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
On Bossing is a bubble of media.
Speaker 12 (37:11):
iHeart podcast production and it's coming soon on the iHeart
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Should brands take a stand?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
I mean this has been an ongoing debate since Simon
Sinex start with why right, the brand needs a purpose
of brand has a purpose and brand needs take a stand.
And we've seen so much evidence of brands succeeding and
taking a stance. We've also seen evidence of brands falling
when taking a stance.
Speaker 1 (00:36):
What's their take on this scale?
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I think smaller challenger brands have a little more freedom.
But I have always been on the side of there's
a million other ways to reach your consumers and find connections.
Speaker 4 (00:47):
Why take the risk.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
But when brands that are super big, like a Microsoft
that's quote unquote for scale, when they do take a stance,
it's actually much much more powerful because they've risked so much. Right,
They're so convicted that even when it's inconvenient, they still
took a stance. But I think your point is that
there are other ways to stand relative to how we
(01:12):
typically think about brand standing for something. So I would
like to if you're not a posed gale, to bring
in a panel brilliant brilliant minds who just so happened
to be students at the University of Michigan. It look
I'm biased, but it just will happened to be brilliant,
and at Michigan we tend to do it that way.
I would love to introduce to the conversation my students Cyrus,
(01:37):
Zach and Ilana who happened to be marketing students at
the University of Michigan. But I think they we'll have
a really powerful point of view that we can really
dig into this idea of brand taking a stand. Alana,
(02:13):
Zach Cyrus, welcome to market, says.
Speaker 4 (02:16):
Thank you, Marcus. Happy to be here.
Speaker 5 (02:18):
I'm very excited to be here and share our perspectives.
Speaker 6 (02:21):
Absolutely, I can't wait to dive into it.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Okay, okay, So I want to ask you, do brands
need to have a stance on social or political issues
in these divisive times to win over consumers?
Speaker 1 (02:32):
Cyrus, what say you?
Speaker 7 (02:33):
I think absolutely brands, regardless of the size, need some
sort of political stance at its core. Brands need to
have beliefs, but the ones that like they publicize should
be related to like their core values. So I think
the ones that they articulate into the media need to
be aligned with what they truly believe. If they're talking
(02:56):
about inclusivity and inclusion, Like, I think that the stance
that they should have should be reflected in their social
media about inclusivity and the other issues that maybe aren't
as salient, they definitely need to have a viewpoint on.
But you sort of have to pick and choose your battles.
So I think the ones that echo your your vision
(03:16):
and your viewpoint the most should should definitely be like
the issues that are prioritized. I think nowadays silence is
an answer and taking a stance as an answer, and
when you're like a real fan of a brand, I
think that that stance is very important because if you
are silent in those cases, then it's like, okay, that's
(03:38):
what maybe the general.
Speaker 6 (03:39):
Consensus is doing.
Speaker 7 (03:40):
Maybe quote unquote, like performative is like a new term.
There's a little dissonance and gap there. So I think
the risk is well worth it. I mean, it's very
powerful when brands take a stance. But yeah, I'm still
thinking about it. But those are not just my initial thoughts.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
So a lot of question for you, Like you all
are biased to some degree because you have some acumen
and some knowledge of the marketing literature, but your friends don't. Right,
your friends are just walking around here, free as a bird,
completely bit into all marketing communications. Clueless, Yeah, exactly clueless.
(04:15):
What are the vibes like? Are your friends when they
see marketing communications they see brands take stands? Are they
like totally I love that brand? Now they're kind of like, yeah, whatever,
I think.
Speaker 8 (04:26):
Me and my friends actually have somewhat of a rare
take for our age. In fact, I'm going to have
to disagree with Cyrus on behalf of me and my
friends to me, in my eyes, a brand is not
a person. A brand is not a human with lived experience.
A brand is made up of hundreds and thousands of
hundreds of thousands of employees. So can there ever be
one stance or one correct answer? Definitely not. But looking
(04:51):
back at the most famous brands you can think of, Apple, Coke, Amazon,
I could sit here and ask eah and every one
of you, is this brand a Democrat or a Republican.
If a brand does a good enough job connecting with
the people and having a product that speaks for them,
then people will find a way to make it their identity.
(05:13):
So it's not so much that a brand can influence
and say we're a Democrat, we're a Republican.
Speaker 4 (05:18):
We believe this.
Speaker 8 (05:19):
I don't think that's a risk worth taking. And if
the brand is strong enough, then people will find a
way to morph it into their identity, not the other
way around.
Speaker 4 (05:28):
I could not agree more.
Speaker 3 (05:29):
You know we I think, Alana, you hit on something
so super important, and I think it's a mistake we
make as marketers all the time. We just did this
research at iHeart on human intelligence and kind of reaching
people as humans in the era of AI and what
the most interesting slide by far, and like the fifty
slide deck, was almost any issue that you give to consumers,
(05:54):
there's a fifty five to forty five split today And
the most interesting thing and terrifying thing that we found
in that research was the biggest determinant of what side
of the fifty five to forty five you were going
to be on. On whaten any issue had to do
with what showed up most in your feed. Right, there's
going to be people on every side of every issue,
(06:16):
So you have to find a way, I think, to
be not vanilla, but take stands on things that that
are less politically motivated and more culturally motivated.
Speaker 4 (06:28):
So that's my take.
Speaker 1 (06:28):
I love this, I love this.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
I actually love the two sides here between Alana and
cyrus Zach. Do you find brands in your social feeds
signaling to you that this is for you? Is it
happening in the comments of the posts. Are they happening
offline and then finding themselves reflected online?
Speaker 1 (06:50):
What's going on here?
Speaker 5 (06:51):
Yeah? I really think that.
Speaker 9 (06:53):
My perspective is that with the for you page, specifically
with social media, is that I don't think people truly
know the reasons why they believe what they believe. And
I've seen that firsthand in so many conversations with friends
and families, where it seems like they're portraying their own
opinion that they've developed over time, but in reality it's
(07:14):
a twenty second short that someone said that they agreed with.
But from the outside perspective, we don't know the difference
between one or the other. So in reality, we think
we know what we want and what we want to consume,
but I think in reality it's based off what we
see everyone else doing around us is what defines how
(07:38):
we want to consume. I think, specifically for gen Z,
it's never been harder to truly identify who you are
as an individual because we really live in a comparative
culture where the average person my age is scrolling five
hours a day on their phone. And from that, you know,
(07:58):
it seems that can asumption has become a way to
portray your identity physically and externally, so that from there
the most important thing is seeing one what everyone else
is doing around you, and two from an identity perspective,
is that what brands do you think physically aligned with you?
(08:19):
Because by living in a world of comparison and having
an unclear perspective on who you are and what you
care about, that consumption becomes, in my opinion, so much
more important because, for example, with clothing, my first perception
of someone is based off how they dress before their
(08:39):
exact personality. And I think that is a great example
of the significance of consumption today with how people defining
their identity.
Speaker 3 (08:48):
I think fashion is a big part of identity. But
you know, I don't know, do you talk to your
friends about which mobile cell phone provider you use and
think of that as part of your identity? Are you
just looking for the best deal or the most reliable? Like,
how do you guys think about the brands? They're a
little more hidden.
Speaker 9 (09:07):
I came across a constant trend from talking to all
my friends is in terms of understanding their consumption, and
the reality is that we don't like making decisions. So
from a consumption perspective, I'll ask my friend, why do
you get this type of soap at the grocery store
or at during read every time, and they say, honestly,
(09:30):
I bought it six years ago, and I have no
idea if it's the best, but I know it works,
so that's personally good.
Speaker 5 (09:36):
Enough for me.
Speaker 4 (09:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (09:38):
Well, most people don't have a relationship probably with their
body wash, right.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
I think you take a brand like Dove, who has
very boldly, very publicly taken a stance with regards to
real beauty and.
Speaker 8 (09:52):
Confidence, I would say Dove is the exception, not the rule.
I think any strong value statement would maybe get the
same outcome, and I would probably say it's the same
for these hidden products like we were talking about, so
with soap. If I went to the grocery store and
every single product I had to look at and understand
(10:12):
and make sure that this definitely represents me, I would
be there from now until New Year's and that's just
not a feasible way to live.
Speaker 4 (10:21):
It seems like we are.
Speaker 8 (10:23):
So quick to judge people from what they see, what
they're like Zach said, what they're wearing, And I really
think we need to learn to find a way to
not do that because half the time you don't really
know what a brand stands for, and you don't want
to be at risk if a brand says something you
don't agree with, and the other half you have no
idea why you're wearing or doing what you're doing.
Speaker 1 (10:44):
Yeah.
Speaker 7 (10:45):
Absolutely, I think that the distinction between left and right
and trying to bring something that's like more in the
middle ground is very important. And then also in terms
of like Dove taking a stance, I think nowadays it's
very common that brand won't take a stance on the
strong issues and things that are like important to like,
(11:05):
like people my age and like the people around me.
So it's very unique what Dove did, and I can
say that like that works because we don't see brands
doing things like that. So I think it's very important
when like a brand takes a stance, but only if
it's like truly like what they believe that I know
we're having like like we kind of just pick things
(11:26):
because we pick them, and we're kind of just cemented
into that and we don't know why we're doing it,
but I think it's like sort of when we see
people around us doing that, it's a reflection of our identity.
And then when a brand takes a stand on something
that they believe and once, once that kind of intersection happens,
I think that like makes some meaning for the consumer.
(11:48):
So I know there's like some psychological like things with
like consumption nowadays, but I think that brands should still
be playing in these issues as long as they like
strongly like relate to it.
Speaker 3 (12:02):
Yeah, I think Dove is so is super interesting because
it also wasn't really political. There's not really the anti beauty,
anti real side of the equation.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Same with brand and.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
All the conversations we're having here.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
The science backs up all of this, right, The paradox
of choice, this idea of finding things that are congruent
with our identity, this idea of not knowing what to
buy because there's so much to choose from. So we
look at what our peers buy as a way of
adopting a strategy that helps us stay connected with our people,
(12:35):
with our social groups. All these things are at play here,
and for marketers, what it means is having to understand
what's actually driving what we do, because what I'm hearing
here and police by all means pushback if you see.
Here's the different is that the issue isn't about us
stand so much as much as it is about what
(12:56):
you're standing for and your ability to be consistent in
that stance. That is not a convenient thing, It's a
conviction thing. In all this, we do this as companies
that are starting these vessels of meaning that we call brand,
and we do it to nurture relationships with people so
that they choose us. But I guess that bears another
(13:18):
question that someone hit on a little bit earlier is
that do people actually really want relationships with brands or
do they just want the best things for their dollar?
Speaker 1 (13:28):
ALTA? What's say you?
Speaker 8 (13:29):
I want to preface by starting with just by buying
a product, you have made a relationship with that brand,
a transactional one, but a relationship nonetheless, And once you
get your foot in the door, I don't see why
a brand wouldn't want to continue to build that relationship.
For example, and that could be like you mentioned, products
are parody, So how can we build a relationship that's
(13:52):
to me a political but still resonates deeply with a consumer.
And so for me, take for example, Starbucks, Am I
an expert coffee drinker?
Speaker 5 (14:02):
No?
Speaker 4 (14:03):
Can I tell the difference that my being is burnt?
Speaker 5 (14:05):
No?
Speaker 8 (14:05):
I don't know that. But what I do know is
that I really like the Starbucks rewards program. I think
it's a good one. So if I'm at school and
I'm wanting coffee, I'm going to go to Starbucks because
I feel that this relationship will be beneficial to both
of us, because I think if I buy this coffee,
there's going.
Speaker 4 (14:22):
To be a free coffee for me down the line.
Speaker 8 (14:23):
And so that's a relationship right there, the one that's
going to keep me buying, even if I don't necessarily
like the product or it's the best product. So in
my eyes, yes, absolutely build a relationship. But going back
to what we said earlier, I think I can actually
find some common ground with Cyrus. I think we can
do it, and that my take is if a company
wants to be political, great, go for it. I'm just
(14:47):
never going to be in a position sitting here saying
they absolutely have to or they should And going back
to what Zach said about the pervasiveness of social media
and our algorithms.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
We're constantly being fed what we think we're going to
interact with.
Speaker 8 (15:00):
And when we are seeing all of these political issues
and we sit here and we're saying, I'm going to
boycott this brand because they haven't commented about something. That
is what I'm so against. Because social media started out
with such immense hope and opportunity that this is going
to be such a great way to heal communication, except
(15:21):
it's done really nothing but hurt communication. Because we should
be giving social media to the experts and giving them
a platform to stand, not brands. I really don't need
to hear a brand or an influencer speak about something
political because I want to hear from the best. And
when we force a brand or an influencer, you got
(15:42):
one day to comment on this or I'm going to
boycott you, we're getting an incomplete and a flawed response.
So I'm with you, Cyrus. If you wholeheartedly believe it
and you're going to stay consistent, do it. But if
you're not, don't do it.
Speaker 9 (15:56):
Yeah, I think it really honestly depends on the product category.
But on the first part in terms of brand relationships.
I think it doesn't need to be thought of in
terms of like just like a loyalty program or supporting
and believing everything that brand believes in. Like, for example,
I have a loyal, loyal relationship to old Spice. Every
(16:18):
time I go the drain read I'm buying old Spice.
I cannot tell you, for the love of me, what
old Spice stands for or what it means, but I
know that that's my brand and I will be buying
old Spice for the next decade.
Speaker 5 (16:31):
Do I know why?
Speaker 9 (16:32):
Honestly, not really, But I think the majority of people
don't understand the relationships that they have and the meaning
behind that. Back to what Alana was talking about with
the economic theory is that I don't want to have
to take the time to think about the deodor and
I'm using.
Speaker 5 (16:47):
I want to use that brain power to focus.
Speaker 9 (16:51):
On the things that matter a lot more to me
in terms of the way I consume, the way I think,
the way I believe, and.
Speaker 2 (16:58):
Like studying for my lass right, yes, exactly exactly.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
I think you hit on something right.
Speaker 3 (17:05):
I mean, probably eighty percent of the rationale is often
about the transactional value, Right, did I get good value?
Speaker 4 (17:13):
Is it worth the price?
Speaker 1 (17:14):
Oh?
Speaker 3 (17:14):
I get some points, I get some loyalty, like I'll
get a free And I think sometimes when we sit
in Brainstorm idy eight, we probably spend too little time
thinking about the functional stuff, and we're all about the
emotional and the cultural part of brands and sometimes just
that functional stuff. Right if you're if the product doesn't work,
if you know you buy the thing and it doesn't
(17:35):
meet your expectations, like you're dead in the water exactly,
you know.
Speaker 2 (17:50):
So it's all being interesting here because I think that
there are two worlds that are conjoining here. There is
the functional part of the product that's owned by the
brand or the brand and product, and then there's this
idea of identity congruence based on what it means. So
while the product may function so perfectly and that I
(18:10):
buy this thing because it performs that the functional job
to be done, there is, however, the conspicuous nature of
it being seen by other people and based on what
people think of that brand. I would argue that that
was the issue with blud Light two years ago, that
for some it was standing for LGBTQ plus community, for
others it was you know, a boycott to like not
(18:33):
buy it at all? People go, no, what, I don't
want to be in the middle of this, so i'm's
not going to buy it. I'm going to drink Modello instead,
and the business sort of tanks. So I guess the
question I have now for all of us here is
how do marketers do that? Like if we were to
give like a budget to some marketers said, all right,
guys and gals and everyone in between, we want to
(18:54):
cut through. We want to you know, leverage the value
propositions and how great it is as a product to
establish these relationships that may be transactional, but we also
want to signal meaning in the eyes of other people
so that people buy it, so they fit within their community.
Speaker 1 (19:11):
What would you tell them to do?
Speaker 7 (19:12):
I think people want in a relationship with other people,
Like I think the transactional element is very, very important,
But when we look holistically, people want to be in
connection with other people and other people are an extension
of their own identity. So I guess to the point
of creating meaningful, like committed relationships, like, I think the
(19:33):
most important word there is meaning. And I think we
talked a lot about how meaning is dictated over time,
and so I think the budget and the investments today,
you're not necessarily going to see the like the payoffs
or the like exact effects immediately. So I feel like,
in my view and like the people around me, is
like authenticity is key. So like the true fans, they
(19:56):
don't only track what's on social media, they track how
the money is, how the high practices are. Like, I
think that if you look at the brand as a whole,
we like silo social media as the only like way that.
Speaker 6 (20:08):
Brands can like articulate their stance.
Speaker 7 (20:11):
But it's all like the other many things that they do,
like internally with their money and like their culture. So
I think I would like standardize that to their values
first and then work on like promoting things over a
consistent amount of time so it can start making meaning.
Speaker 9 (20:29):
Because we live in such a divisive world, no matter
if the brand gives itself an identity, society will innately
give the brand an identity based on how society consumes that.
So my perspective is that as a as a brand leader,
I'd want to get ahead of controlling the identity I
(20:49):
want to portray in society rather than leading it to
the hands. It's the consumer, and we've seen time and
time again how that can go very good and very bad.
So I would spend the majority of the budget focusing
on specifically portraying in a simple manner, what the brand is,
what the brand means, what it stands for, what we
(21:12):
care about, and why we're here. Probably one of the
most important things I've learned in class over the last
year is that essentially all products are the same, and
if all products are the same, why do we consume
the way we do because of those factors that move
beyond value proposition, And I think due to that, that's
what we need to prioritize most because in the majority
(21:35):
of product categories, as long as the physical intrinsic value
is comparable to the market, what matters beyond that is
the meaning of the brand.
Speaker 8 (21:46):
Yeah, I really agree with Cyrus and that if done well,
you'll probably not see the effects right away.
Speaker 4 (21:52):
Yet are you excited? Yes, Cirrus.
Speaker 8 (21:55):
To me, the best brand is one that can grow
with a consumer. So for that, let's go back to
the relationship analogy. When I was younger, I had a
relationship with Justice. I was in bedazzled everything. Would you
ever see me shopping at Justice now new I'm more
of a gap girl, I would say, But that doesn't
(22:15):
mean that Justice is failing. It just means that I'm
not the consumer anymore. But what would make them successful
is that when I have kids, my first thought is
I'm going to address them in Justice.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
So one brand I think does this extraordinarily well as Lego.
Speaker 8 (22:29):
I haven't played with Lego in ten years, or maybe
I have because I go to business school, but Lego
is doing such a good job at reaching kids and
adults alike, so that even if I am not a
Lego adult per se, I still trust that I'm going
to buy Legos for my kids and it's going to
stay with us for a lifetime. So if I had
(22:50):
control over the budget, I would say my number one
priority is how we can grow with a consumer and
really understanding them and their needs. And like we mentioned,
if I do something to mess up and lose their trust,
I could lose that consumer forever. But that's not just
one consumer, it's them and their friends and their kids. Yeah,
if a brand does its job right, even if you
age out of that company or that brand, you'll find
(23:13):
a way to keep it in your life.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
I love that.
Speaker 2 (23:16):
I absolutely love that, and me actually speaks to to
Zech's point that we are not just relationships with the consumer,
abul relationship with their people as well, because collectively they
are deciding what people like them do, what they buy,
what they wear, what things are congruent with who they are.
So I'm going to do a rapid fire segment that
we call care don't Care. We're going to give you
(23:37):
three scenarios, three situations that have present themselves in the
marketing discourse, and get your take like, should we care
or do you not care? These are the time of
the three biggest stories, I would say in advertising, at
least the back half of the year for sure. So
let's start with Elf and matt riche right brand. You
(23:58):
know people and brands say that you know the brand
missed the mark right? But did they so for you all,
do you.
Speaker 1 (24:04):
Care or do you not care? Or did you even
know about it?
Speaker 8 (24:08):
I would say that they did miss the mark, but
I don't care that much because it seems like the
ELF consumers were very forgiving. So we said, we're not mad,
We're disappointed, but I don't believe ELF shares or products
really took a hit Cyr.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
I wass supposed say you did you stop barring ELF
because of Matt Rife?
Speaker 7 (24:27):
Yeah, I want to say as an alf intense ELF
consumer myself now, but I think I completely agree with
like agree with Alana. I think they did miss the mark. Personally,
I do like, like, after researching the situation, I do
care in the moment, like I'm not really the target
(24:48):
consumer i'd say, but after seeing it, I feel like
I absolutely care because it's it's dealing with people. It's
like a people sort of issue, and I don't know,
I felt like I cared about it.
Speaker 1 (25:02):
Zach, what say you? Do you care or don't you care?
Speaker 9 (25:06):
Honestly, I never saw it on my feet on social
media anywhere. And as we've been talking about our for
you page, defind who we are more than a lot
more than we think we do. So I say, based
off the algorithm, I don't think the algorithm thinks.
Speaker 5 (25:21):
I care.
Speaker 4 (25:24):
Well said, I love missteps.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
What I love about ELF is that they decided to
keep the ad up.
Speaker 1 (25:33):
They didn't take it down. They're like, this was a misstep.
Speaker 2 (25:36):
To your point, Gail's like, they apologize forward, so it
was a misstep, but they didn't want to bury, you know.
Speaker 4 (25:41):
The bad stuff they weren't hiding.
Speaker 1 (25:43):
Yeah, exactly, they believe it transparenceries.
Speaker 2 (25:45):
I love that about Elf Corey and that team is
just out of this world and what they're doing. Okay,
so probably the biggest marketing story in the back half
of the year. American Eagle in city Swinging.
Speaker 10 (25:59):
Chans are passed from parents to offspring, often determining traits
like heigh color, personality, and even eye color.
Speaker 2 (26:07):
My chains are blue, right, American Eagle doubled down. They said, Hey,
you know, this is just about genes, not about genes,
wink wink not not.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
Did you care?
Speaker 5 (26:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 9 (26:17):
I saw that all over and I think I would
say care for sure, not because of the physical ad,
but because of the way society responded to the ad
and how divisive that was. Because, to be honest, if
I saw that ad as as is, I wouldn't have
nowhere had the same response and contextual background that I
(26:41):
would after seeing it all over social media and online
for you page. And I think American Ego is a
great example of they knew exactly what they were doing,
in my opinion, and they knew the implications that that
would entail. They knew it would create controversy and a
(27:02):
lot of people would disagree with it. But as we
all say, like want bad press is still good press.
Speaker 5 (27:08):
That's the first thing.
Speaker 9 (27:10):
But I also think that as long as you're pleasing
the people that you want to please, then in the end,
it's all for the best for the brand.
Speaker 6 (27:18):
I'm also in a very similar position to Zach.
Speaker 7 (27:20):
I saw this all over my feed, and I do
care a lot about sort of like the messaging behind that.
I don't know like what their target consumer is and
what like exactly like their their market is, but I
think there was very intentional in what they're doing, the
double meaning and things like that, and like I mean myself,
(27:43):
I'm like not feeling so hot about it after you know,
hearing sort of the double meeting. So I think I
also care just because it created a lot of riffs
in like, just as Zach said, is very divisive, and
I think that when you kind of like tear people apart,
it's like a little bit I think it's a little
(28:04):
bit like very impactful in the care, like the caring aspect.
We care a lot about the things that divide us.
I think more than like the things that bring us together.
I feel like we're like more scrutinious about those aspects.
So that's why I say I care a lot, because
like my networks around me like very divided, very divided
about this.
Speaker 6 (28:22):
So that's my take in two cents, All.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
Right, a lot of did you go buy some some
genes now for American Eagle because you were just so
enamored with their positioning and it felt so congruent with
your identity.
Speaker 8 (28:35):
Well, what I would have done is immediately had a
bunch of different body types and people types making the
same ad.
Speaker 4 (28:42):
But that's just me.
Speaker 8 (28:43):
Yeah, but I think it's so important to recognize, like
like what Zach and Cyrus were saying, it was all
over our feed. People were enraged, but then the line
sold out and the company did extremely well after that.
So I think that's a lesson to social media is
lying to you because only the ten percent of people
who actually care are the ones speaking about it. No
(29:05):
one's posting like I don't care, but that's probably what
most people feel. What I have done that exactly the
same way they did, No, but it worked for them.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
That line did extremely well.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
Okay, so just round out the trifective, care, don't care,
and we got to talk Cracker Barrel, the logo change, right,
did we really miss the old timer?
Speaker 1 (29:28):
Do we care?
Speaker 2 (29:29):
Did we notice? Let's start with you, Zach, do we care?
Don't care?
Speaker 1 (29:34):
What's you take?
Speaker 5 (29:35):
I personally don't care.
Speaker 9 (29:36):
And I could have a bias perspective because when I
don't shop at Cracker Barrel and I don't think I've
ever been to a Cracker Barrel, just being honest.
Speaker 4 (29:45):
The gift shop is off. Is the gift shop? It is?
It is.
Speaker 9 (29:49):
But I would say, just in terms of going back
to what Alana said, she made a great point that
the voice you hear on social media is not always
the voice of the zeitgeist per se. And so with
that you really need to take that into account because
we were saying with the American ego thing, people only
(30:09):
care and have an opinion because it seems like everyone
around you has an opinion. So if that ten percent
can blow it up on social media, it seems, oh
my god, I need to have an opinion on this.
But from my perspective is that maybe my perspective is
that it doesn't really change that much the meaning of
the brand from the revamp.
Speaker 5 (30:31):
Of the logo.
Speaker 7 (30:32):
I'm also in the same boat as Zach. I didn't
really notice. I don't like, didn't care, because I've also
never been to a Cracker Barrel. I'd never like, like,
I just I don't even know what type of food
they sell.
Speaker 1 (30:45):
Are amazing, they have great pagos?
Speaker 7 (30:47):
Okay, yes, but I think in the grand scheme of things,
I didn't even notice, like, wow, yeah, it's a crowd
Lana here, don't care.
Speaker 5 (30:58):
Well.
Speaker 8 (30:58):
What I'm taking from this discussion is aarently I need
to go get pancakes and gifts from Cracker Barrel, but
I too have never been. I will say the only
time I've been tempted to go was because of all
the controversy in the news and on social media, so
I was like, maybe I should give it a chance,
but I didn't.
Speaker 4 (31:13):
There you, honestly, I also didn't care.
Speaker 8 (31:15):
But I will say whenever there's this big logo change,
I'm so fascinated by its choices, Like PepsiCo just changed theirs,
for example, and I don't like it. I think it's bad,
but I also like, don't care that much. And most
people don't really care about PepsiCo. They care about Pepsi, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (31:32):
Don't care. Sorry.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
People don't like change either, right when you're a customer
of a thing. I think when you when brands make change,
particularly like well established brands that have been around for decades,
and you know, you know, any change comes with like
people going why are you changing? I'm a fan, whether
it's cracker, Barrel or Pepsi.
Speaker 2 (31:54):
So I think it gets to this idea of consistency,
that relationships require consistency, meaning requires consistency. What is normal
people like me I'm going to consistently do to stay
in community. I think consistiti is a really good thing
to pull out of this.
Speaker 3 (32:11):
We've been talking about brand stands. What's a brand that
you love that took a stand or a brand that
you love a little less that took a stand.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
I can't say I've.
Speaker 8 (32:20):
Been particularly moved by a single company taking up political stands. However,
I can appreciate Patagonia and their commitment to environmental issues.
I can tell it's really core to their business model
and they're not faking it, so I would give them props.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
I love that.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
One of my favorite ads of all time was the
Patagonia ad don't buy this jacket it's just a genius
way when they kicked off kind of their positioning for that.
Speaker 4 (32:47):
If you don't need a new jacket, don't buy a
new jacket.
Speaker 8 (32:50):
And you can find where every single product is made
if you care, that's right, That's.
Speaker 1 (32:54):
Right for me.
Speaker 5 (32:55):
It's definitely Nike.
Speaker 9 (32:57):
I don't think I there's a company who love their
ads more than Nike. And you'll never catch me running
in on shoes. I don't care if they're better shoes,
I just will not do it. I'm a loyal follower
and customer to the brand. But I just think that
the way they take stances in a way that is
(33:18):
not only for everyone, but in such an inspiring, inspiring,
motivating way that always makes me feel like more like
cherished and involved and just overall motivated to get active
and be out there in the world. That I don't
think many other brands have the ability to take a
(33:40):
stance on a specific topic and then translate that into
such like provocative and proactive emotions.
Speaker 1 (33:49):
Yeah, not political, but convicted, Yeah.
Speaker 4 (33:53):
And consistent.
Speaker 11 (33:54):
That's right.
Speaker 4 (33:54):
Yeah, it's a great example. How about you, Cyrus awesome.
Speaker 7 (33:57):
One that really resonates and stands out with me is
Ben and Jerry's and their work with like like social.
Speaker 6 (34:03):
Issues and human human rights activism.
Speaker 7 (34:06):
I actually found out about Ben and Jerry's through all
my friends, but then, like I would, I love Ben
and Jerry so much that I was like, all right,
like let's let's see what's like, what's going on?
Speaker 6 (34:15):
What are they all about?
Speaker 7 (34:17):
And I just think that they're bringing the world together
and they're standing up for people, and like that's that's
the really important part of that for me, beyond like
the utility of like the tonight dough and all the
awesome flavors that they have.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
So I think that's that's super important to me, And it.
Speaker 7 (34:34):
Just it keeps a meaningful relationship with the people around me.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
So friends, they strike again, right, It's all socially driven, right,
but if people like me do.
Speaker 4 (34:43):
We're social animals, right, we want to belong.
Speaker 2 (34:46):
I don't know about you, Gail, but hearing from a
lot of Zach and Cyrus, I feel like our future
is in good hands when it comes to to our
industry as marketers, because we have some critical thinkers who
are not only looking at this sense of like a
consumer would, but also kind of rigorously interrogating this to
hopefully make better decisions for brands along the way.
Speaker 1 (35:07):
Gail, what's your takeaway from all this?
Speaker 4 (35:10):
I could not agree more. I love flipping culture back
to you guys.
Speaker 3 (35:15):
You give me confidence that you get it and you
want to make smart and responsible decisions for the brands
that I'm sure you, guys will be a shepherding forward someday.
So I want to thank you guys for giving us
a little dose of reality. I think we need more
of this in our boardrooms and conference rooms.
Speaker 2 (35:33):
A lot of clients at Post Cyrus Bettel thank you
so much for your brilliance and allowing us to see
the world through your lenses. And for everyone listening, thank
you for joining us for a market says.
Speaker 12 (35:51):
Market says. It's a bubblo media. Ihet podcast Production.
Speaker 11 (36:01):
I'm Ashaw Tobacco Outa and I'm Juiani.
Speaker 10 (36:04):
We're from the Athena Project and we want to talk
about our new podcast called Unbossing.
Speaker 11 (36:09):
M Bossing, Yes, Unbossing.
Speaker 13 (36:11):
You may have heard me say on many occasions true
that the future doesn't fit in the containers of the past. Well,
in this series, we're going to talk about one specific
container that needs to be radically reshaped.
Speaker 11 (36:23):
And that is the shape of leadership today.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
Indeed, a shout, it does feel like everything is changing,
new technologies, AI, new expectations, new ways of working, everything
true accepting the bosses of today, and we're going.
Speaker 11 (36:36):
To seriously take them apart.
Speaker 13 (36:38):
And the way we're going to take them apart is
we're going to unboss them.
Speaker 10 (36:41):
Each week, we'll sit down with the most badass bosses
in business and tech and talk about what they needed
to unlearn in order to succeed.
Speaker 11 (36:48):
Again, that's right true.
Speaker 13 (36:50):
If success is about learning, prolific success is about unlearning
and writing new rules to new times.
Speaker 10 (36:57):
If you're a leader and you're not understanding why you
need to unboss, then you've got to stop talking and
start listening to on Bossing, because if.
Speaker 11 (37:04):
You're not in the conversation, you're not in the game.
Speaker 4 (37:09):
On Bossing is a bubble of media.
Speaker 12 (37:11):
iHeart podcast production and it's coming soon on the iHeart
app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com